“Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity.[1] Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. The term “gaslighting” comes from the play Gas Light and its film adaptations. The term is now also used in clinical and research literature.[2][3]”
“Tom could publish the Matlack family grocery list and provoke a Twitter carpet-bombing based on his sexist breakfast choices.”
–Michael Rowe, on my Facebook Page
♦◊♦
Yesterday was yet another interesting day in the ongoing conversation about gender politics, The Good Men Project, and my attempt to spark a national conversation about what it means to be a good man. My 300-word blog in the NYT about how much I love my wife, make-up, body ink, and plastic surgery spawned another attack by a feminist.
Megan Murphy, writing in rabble.ca, leads in by identifying me as “The Good Douche Project’s Tom Matlack” in her piece At long last: Tom Matlack’s opinion on your face. She later qualifies that further by calling me, “Tom Matlack, of the MRA infested, porn-loving, rape apologist Good Men Project.”
At this point personal attacks on me bounce right off. It’s not that I don’t take the topics I write about personally. I am incredibly passionate about the men’s stories that serve as the basis of what we are doing and the issues that go to the heart of what it means to be a good father and good husband and good man in 21st century America and around the globe.
But the attacks on The Good Men Project as a whole are unfair and unjustified. We provide an open platform for men, and women, to talk about the most challenging topics from prison to divorce, poverty and unemployment, sex trafficking and porn, rape and sexual abuse, sexual identity and the search for intimacy. We’ve published fifteen thousand pieces since our founding. Our top ten most popular of all time include:
Raising Boys (a Dad’s Advice for Moms)
Gay Men’s Sexism and Women’s Bodies
Lead a Good Life Everyone: Trey Malone’s Suicide Note
Why I Don’t Want to Talk About Race
I certainly understand that in talking about very sensitive topics we stir up plenty of controversy. We attempt to publish provocative pieces from all sides of an issue in order to allow a nuanced and deep conversation to occur, one that has been lacking among and about men and manhood. That’s the mission and the vision.
No doubt individual pieces may be challenging for some. They may be upsetting or downright painful. Strong reactions are natural when dealing with addiction, abuse, divorce, race, sexuality and gender. It’s totally fair, and expected, to be critical of individual pieces and authors. But attacking the enterprise as a whole, given the breadth and depth of our content, doesn’t make any sense in my opinion.
♦◊♦
Getting back to the narrower question of my NYT blog post, and Ms. Murphy’s critique of it, I want to talk about what I learned from the heated conversation that ensued inside the GMP tent on my Facebook page (because we don’t all agree, which is exactly the point). But first I want to share a different conversation that happened on my Facebook page to make a related point.
Thursday I wrote the follow status update:
I am struggling at the bench press and Konstantin Selivanov, my amazing trainer, starts talking about how silly it is that his dog needs to get special treatments for it’s teeth. “My dad had huskies. He went hunting one time and he shot a bird. He looked at the dog and told it to fetch the bird. The dog looked at him like he was crazy. My dad gave him one more chance. The dog still looked at him like he was crazy. So he shot the dog instead…” Now I am laughing so hard I have to drop the weights.
Several of my friends who know Konstantin found my post humorous. And then friends and relatives who are dog lovers started making clear how unfunny they thought the story was. “Wonderin’ where rollin’ like this would fall, say, on a Good Man behavioral spectrum…” wrote a friend with two rescued greyhounds.
I explained that what was funny was that Konstantin grew up in Russia. While Konstantin is still one of the toughest SOB’s I have ever met, he is also one of the kindest, sensitive guys I know who believes in meditation and a carefully regimented holistic diet. It was the distance he has travelled from a dad who shot his dog to a son who pays for his teeth to get his teeth brushed that was funny. The journey we all are on to find a masculinity that works for us.
Konstantin himself came on the thread and explained:
As Tom said, it was over 30 years ago in Russia North of Siberia, place called Yakutia. Different culture it is. In wintertime my mom gave too much food to our poor dog so he got fat and lazy, not a good combination for a hunting dog, as my friend say – Fat wolf can’t hunt. So laziness and too much food got him killed.
In the last comment on the thread Konstantin talked about how heartbreaking it was to watch his mom weep over her lost dog.
My point is that sure, my post could have been viewed as offensive to animal lovers and advocates. Michael Vick went to prison for animal cruelty. But there was actually a lot more to the story. It happened in a different time and place. And it wasn’t about the dead dog at all. It was about a boy watching his mom cry and a man struggling to get to the place where he is not his father but a father and husband who takes the family dog for professional cleanings. And it was about a really macho guy laughing at the sensitivity he had developed, unlike his dad, for dogs and people. Seeing all that flash across his face made me laugh because it touched my heart. My first post explained it very poorly for anyone except the people who already knew Konstantin’s story. But he explained it himself perfectly so not only did the animals lovers come running to his defense, but all were moved by his honesty.
♦◊♦
I did post a link to Ms. Murphy’s piece with the phrase, “a piece of beauty…” on my homepage. Then all hell broke out. Friends, GMP contributors, family all had something to say.
The core issue quickly became one GMP contributor calling Ms. Murphy “effing crazy” for calling our organization “Douche” while another contributor felt this response to her was gaslighting her.
I waded in a couple of times to make clear how I felt my NYT piece was really non-controversial but pretty quickly realized that my actual 300 words really had little to do with the conversation.
In the end, the issues came down to two related points:
1) If a woman does something that in fact a man thinks is wrong/crazy/inappropriate, is calling her out on that controlling her language in a way that is sexist, gaslighting, mind control?
2) As a man with “privilege”, does saying you are not the enemy in fact, by definition, make you the enemy for your complicit participation in the oppression of women?
I am going to give you my thoughts on these two questions, for what that is worth, but before doing so I want to reiterate a core part of the GMP mission. We want to foster discussion from as many points of view as possible based on the belief that in the end we all have the right to our own experience and our own conclusions but until we each hear all sides we will not be fully informed. And more is gained in the discussion that sticking to some single-minded view of the world.
There is no GMP party line, no set position on anything. The only commitment is to ongoing discussion about the central issues of what it means to be a good man.
♦◊♦
I fully support the idea that race and gender have been used to systematically oppress throughout history. And that analysis based on privilege and power dynamics is a legitimate and important way to think about our world and human interactions.
What I do not accept is the notion that privilege is the only way to think about humanity in general and manhood in particular. Said another way, there are many great places for a feminist perspective on daily life. The core reason I started The Good Men Project was because I felt men lacked a place to talk about the unique challenges of being a good guy in modern society.
We have certainly included a ton of feminist content throughout. All three of the leaders of the company, two women and a man, identify themselves as strong feminists. Our first editor-in-chief was a noted gay writer (and dog lover, just by the way). But the topic isn’t feminism. It’s manhood.
The chain of logic that frankly drives me nuts is that because I am a white man I have privilege. My privilege blinds me to what it is like to be oppressed. And as a result I cannot speak to my own experience of the world apart from the cage of ignorance that power analysis puts me in. This logic in essence obliterates the idea upon which The Good Men Project was founded, namely that men need to talk more about their experience in all its gory detail rather than less.
In part this may be just an inclination on my part toward the micro rather than macro analysis. I am not a sociologist, nor a PhD in gender theory. I’m just a guy who lived a colorful life in search of other men who have stories to tell that enlighten, inspire, and help us all figure out how to be better men. That, of course, includes our treatment of women.
On the gaslighting question I certainly understand that telling a woman she is crazy is a sensitive area for a variety of reasons. We have worked hard to highlight the fact that male victims of sexual abuse have a particular burden to bear. But I agree, and we have written about often, the prevalence of rape by men of women. No one is disputing that fact. And the core concept of gaslighting is one in which a perpetrator of physical or emotional abuse tries to convince his (or her) victim that they are too crazy to believe the truth of their experience.
Again, our goal is to allow a space where the truth of men’s experiences can be shared in a way that moves the ball forward in terms of male integrity, compassion, intimacy, and fulfillment.
So I don’t see the concept of gaslighting as a blank check by which a woman can say whatever she wants, wait for an angry response, and then whip out the gaslighting card. If you start a conversation about The Good Men Project by calling our 500 contributors all d-bags I think it’s okay to call you names back, even though I personally have and will continue to refrain from doing that. Somebody punches you in the nose, it’s probably not a great idea to punch them back. But you are justified in doing so since they started the fight.
♦◊♦
This all boils down to how we handle differences of opinion. There have obviously been some individual pieces on GMP that upset those in the feminist community. And I don’t expect everyone to agree with what I just said about power dynamics even amongst the leadership group at GMP.
But does that mean that we have to resort to McCarthy-type black-balling of all members of the GMP community as pariahs?
When I sit down with Julio Medina, who spent a decade inside Sing Sing, or David Sanfacon, who is home with 6 month-old twins, I want to hear the story they have to tell from the deepest part of their soul. It may involve issues of race or gender or sexual orientation. Or it may not. It’s their life and their story. And I just don’t see why I have to accept feminist doctrine as the only way to try to understand manhood.
Sure shooting a dog in cold blood is horrific. But maybe, just maybe, there is a crying mother and a little boy that you are missing.
We all have a story to tell. Some come rushing out, some are pent-up and come out in bits and pieces, little gasps of truth. My hope is that GMP has been and will continue to be a place where men of all kinds, feminist and not, rich and poor, inmates and CEOs, all religions, all nationalities, all sexual orientations, all colors, all ages, and with a rainbow of interests and points of view can share their deepest truths in a way that makes clear that we as men are not alone. That we can do better in terms of how we treat women, as individuals and as a gender. And we can inspire each other to be great dads. And that goodness, whatever that means to you, isn’t a solitary goal. Being a man in the 21st century does not mean being silent. It means be speaking up and being one of the many.
###
image Steve Locke
About Tom Matlack
I am sorry but to reiterate the bold hypocritical POV that was taken here but noone mentioned it and it bugged me:
In fact I think this makes a pretty solid analogy to men talking about women’s makeup choices. Loving women, being an ally to women, being a staunch feminist… none of that changes that you’ve never experienced the world from a woman’s point-of-view. And the opinion of the privileged, on certain matters, IS going to have to take a back seat to the opinions of those who suffer from inequality.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn’t this imply that men cannot be hairdressers/beauticians ?
That is the crux of the problem and thankfully it was pointed out, but in more that it was a side effect, when its the main problem. That problem is the assumption that someone could not have any concept of something based solely on their gender. That by being a man there are certain things “he can never understand” that they are doomed to ignorance, men could not POSSIBLY be gynecologists, they just can’t understand how a vagina works! , and the only way they can help is shut up and tow the party line.
doooooomed, dooooomed I say, but it’s not their fault, their just men.
That’s not dismissive at all.
and only now did I notice I used their when I mean’t they’re
Honestly, I think she has a point about SOME of the articles posted here. But she was definitely over-homogenizing an entire website. It wouldn’t surprise me if she’d run across one of the articles on here that have made me feel offended and attacked and made assumptions from there. Calling her crazy is a bit of a stretch. Saying that she overreacted or tarred every writer with the same brush would be far more accurate.
what are this articles? One thing is disagreement another is slander.
I think the best thing would be to invite her here, perhaps posting a article, so she can see she has been misinformed by malevolent people. Thats the best I can come up with. Otherwise the more belligerant solution is to drag her to court. And then she has to explain to the judge why she made this statements, and again who are these phantomatic MRA who infest this place? Usually the avoid the GMP since in their eyes this is the Good Mangina Project.
I agree that she was unfair. I am only suggesting that she read an article like “Nice Guys Commit Rape, Too” or another piece and UNFAIRLY homogenized the website. Any open platform discussing something as big as manhood has some bad apples and some great ones. I’m simply saying she is underinformed, not uninformed. Calling people crazy and lashing back doesn’t help anyone learn.
I agree on the name calling, that is out of line to both her and the users here. The nice guy commit too, was a provocative article, poorly written. But it was not rape apologist at all. Anyways I still think that convincing her to write here would be a good idea, perhaps a interview organized by the GMP team?
Honestly, she does sound crazy. She’s like the type of person how recites her college dissertation at every social event.
“She’s like the type of person how recites her college dissertation at every social event.”
Oh crap. Is that bad? That would explain the glazed looks. I thought they all just had ADD.
If men cannot talk about women issues because we never experienced being a women, then women cannot talk about men issues either, because, excuse me, women also never experience being a men either.. But we still have women on GoodMenProject right?
We both need to talk about each other issues, period. Its not we are just enemies, not allies.
I agree. And just as some women have some stupid opinions. So do some men. I simply noted that she probably didn’t read more than a couple of articles, which may have been triggering somehow, and unfairly homogenized. I don’t think “men can’t discuss women issues”. Just that calling anyone crazy based on one statement is also unfair.
I agree. And there’s the strictly practical question, “How do you know the gender of the person commenting?” If someone expresses an opionion with a username that is ambiguou in terms of gender, are we supposed to hold off considering it until we know the actual sex of the author?
“I think I like what you say here, Chris, but before I know whether to agree with you or rip you a new one, I need to know if you’re male or female.”
It may be more accurate to judge a man based on his critics than on his friends. If someone says bad things about you but that person is shrill, unfair, and wallowing in righteous indignation, that can only make your critics look bad. I think “crazy” is used too often. Having an axe to grind, out of touch with much of reality, lacking objectivity on one’s approach, inability to listen or conceive of being wrong, these are more accurate in this case.
The only way to get everyone to like you is to say nothing, except that being silent will make some people made at you as well.
I don’t know about “MRA-infested” or “rape apologist” as an accurate description of the GMP. You could always pick out a few articles and comments as pieces of evidence for that. If she’s looking for absolute ideological purity, she won’t find it here, fortunately.
As for calling this site “porn-loving,” I don’t consider that an insult. : – )
Another way to put it: anyone she hates would likely get a prejudicial boost in respect in my mind. If she hates you, you’re probably not all that bad. That’s not fair or objective, but it’s a powerful reflex for me.
I don’t know about “MRA-infested” or “rape apologist” as an accurate description of the GMP. You could always pick out a few articles and comments as pieces of evidence for that.
I think one would be pretty hard pressed to find a much of a presence of MRAs much less enough to count as an “infestation” as she so lovingly calls it. Simply put someone said something she didn’t like so she tried to liken it to something else that is easily hateable in order to gain approval from her peers.
If this were a political blog she would have said, “Conservative-infested”.
If this were an animal blog she would have said, “PETA-infested”.
If this were a blog she would have said, “Beiber fan-infested”.
Her claim is weak, she knows it, but is banking on there being enough anti-MRA sentiment among her peers that said peers wouldn’t even bother fact checking her claim. A cursory look at A Voice for Men would prove it dead wrong. Same with the rape apologia.
As for calling this site “porn-loving,” I don’t consider that an insult. : – )
Same here. Hoping there is enough anti-porn sentiment among her peers that they won’t even question it. And if her peers are feminists I would think that they would know that porn by default is not something bad.
I also can’t help but notice as a student of historical propaganda her use of the powerful metaphor of “infested.” This is one of the greatest dehumanizing rhetorical tricks ever. The enemy isn’t human, the enemy is like lice or vermin, meant to be exterminated. Hello Holocaust, Trail of Tears, Bataan Death March, Gaza Strip, etc., etc. She’s in very good company, she is.
Of course. Someone commented on this around here a few weeks ago (I think it was Julie).
Taking away someone’s humanity makes it easier to view them as inhuman, monster like. The more inhuman they appear to be the easier it is to make them out to be the enemy. The easier it is to make them out to be the enemy the easier it is to rally support for hatred against them.
I guess I’m still new at this whole game, but what is an “MRA” and what makes one worthy of extermination like a cockroach?
Well if you do look at a search engine It does get worrying: Ranked in order of appearance.
1) Magnetic Resonance Angiogram – A medical diagnostic too for the study of blood flow and blood vessels – so maybe she has a hatred for medical things and medical personnel?
2) Marketing Research Association – Founded in 1957, the leading and largest association of the opinion and marketing research profession. Maybe she has issues with cold calling on the phone and offers of Toaster Ovens?
3) Mountain Rescue Association. Now I can’t think of anyone who has issues there, so I’m going to take stab and wonder about unrequited lesbian love with a yodelling nun…. High on a hill with a lonely goat ?
4) MRA – A Wikipedia Disambiguation page – which given the levels of error in Wikiland tends to be even less helpful that other pages and does tend to cause high levels of frustration and confusion.
5) Malta Resources Authority ?
6) Mauritius Revenue Authority ?
7) Michigan Reading Association ?
8) …… ??????
And all of these are infesting GMP? I do have to say I think someone had a few too many glasses of the left over eggnog before they started blogging! Maybe they will improve with practice and sobriety in many areas?
LoL Mediahound
Everybody knows that MRA is THE Romanian model casting agency
MRA Casting Agency is part of the MRA Group together with the prestigious MRA Models Agency – the first Romanian modeling agency founded in 1992.
MRA Casting started its operations in January 2011 in Bucharest as a full service agency casting and representing Romanian actors, special extras and kids for Romanian clients and worldwide as well.
Puteti sa vizionati (si sa va abonati) canalul oficial al agentiei noastre pe Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/MRACastingAgency sau
We already casted and booked actors, special extras, models and kids for:
http://mramodels.ro/women/
So its safe to say that at GMP we have lots of Romanian photo models actors ect
Simply put someone said something she didn’t like so she tried to liken it to something else that is easily hateable in order to gain approval from her peers.
You mean – She Gas-lighted? P^)
The way some are throwing Thought-terminating Clichés around it reminds me of the months running up to the felling of the Iron Curtain – the collapse of the Soviet Block, and one hell of a good party in Berlin! I’m wonder if I should order in some extra champers … there are Monumental changes in the air. The aire of desperation and confusion wafts down history!
Hang on a minute. Isn’t it misogynistic of her to use the word “Douche” as an insult? I bet she would be offended if you called a man a “pussy,” but isn’t it basically the same kind of anti-female sexism to call a man a “douche”? Associated with feminine anatomy, so gross and disgusting, which shows a misogynistic ideology, etc., etc. (I’m not saying I’m offended by either of these, just that it seems a little hypocritical on her part.)
Maybe I’m reading too much into her word choice. Perhaps she just hates vinegar? A slightly acidic solution killed her little brother? Had a bad experience with a shower in France?
See what I mean about that Aire of desperation and confusion wafting about?
In the good old days, when the revolution was fresh and young, such Bourgeois silly mistakes would not have occurred – and the increasing frequency is a clear sign of both political dysfunction and imminent collapse. It is one of the greatest failings of Marxist Ideology; not allowing self irony – only ironing of others.
You can’t gaslight a douche, so the comparison is invalid. Standard vinegar is not flammable – yet and in all fairness, if the acetic acid contained in vinegar is concentrated enough, then yes, it can be flammable and prone to being gas lit.
Seems simple to me. You come off as a con artist…with a really narrow pitch, and some people fall for it. Not smart people, but oh we’ll.
L
About that photo with the guy kicking:
If that high kick to your head is supposed to teach you something, your trainer is teaching you very bad habits. Although kicking at head level is quite flashy and can be quite devastating, it also leaves the kicker wide open, as the kicker in the photo is demonstrating quite nicely by leaning back, failing to cover either his groin or his head, and leaving the back hand essentially useless. Kicking like that is essentially presenting a groin and a standing leg with ribbons and bows, especially if the kicker’s torso is leaning back like that. Maybe that just shows how tough he is, that he’s not afraid of a ruptured scrotum or snapped knee tendons. Outside of the movies, kicking is optimally effective at waist height and below. Unless your intention is to draw your opponent in with an ostensible display of vulnerability….
I hope he’s teaching you all the things you can do when someone tries to kick you like that.