2025/06/10

Gaslighting - Wikipedia

Gaslighting - Wikipedia

Gaslighting

Checked
Page protected with pending changes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Google Trends topic searches for "Gaslighting" began a substantial increase in 2016.[1]

Gaslighting is the manipulation of someone into questioning their perception of reality.[2][3] The term derives from the 1944 film Gaslight and became popular in the mid-2010s.[4]

Some mental health experts have expressed concern that the term has been used too broadly. In 2022, The Washington Post described it as an example of therapy speak, arguing it had become a buzzword improperly used to describe ordinary disagreements.[5]

Etymology

[edit]
Charles BoyerIngrid Bergman, and Joseph Cotten in the 1944 American film version of Gaslight

The term originates in the 1938 British play Gas Light by Patrick Hamilton. The play was adapted into a 1940 film in the UK, Gaslight, which was remade in the US as the 1944 film Gaslight.[6][7][8] Set among London's elite during the Victorian eraGas Light and its adaptations portray a seemingly genteel husband using lies and manipulation to isolate his heiress wife and persuade her that she is mentally ill so that he can steal from her.[9] One of the husband's tricks is to secretly dim and brighten the indoor gas lighting, insisting his wife is imagining it.[10]

The gerund form gaslighting does not appear in the play or films.[10] It was first used in the 1950s, particularly in the episode of The Burns and Allen Show. In The New York Times, it was first used in a 1995 column by Maureen Dowd.[4] According to the American Psychological Association in 2021, gaslighting "once referred to manipulation so extreme as to induce mental illness or to justify commitment of the gaslighted person to a psychiatric institution".[2] It remained obscure — The New York Times only used it nine times in the following 20 years — until the 2010s, when it seeped into the English lexicon.[4] Merriam-Webster defines gaslighting as "psychological manipulation" to make someone question their "perception of reality" leading to "dependence on the perpetrator".[3] The American Dialect Society named gaslight the most useful new word of 2016.[11] Oxford University Press named it a runner-up in its list of the most popular new words of 2018.[12]

In self-help and amateur psychology

[edit]

Gaslighting is a term used in self-help and amateur psychology to describe a dynamic that can occur in personal relationships (romantic or parental) and in workplace relationships.[13][14] Gaslighting involves two parties: the "gaslighter", who persistently puts forth a false narrative in order to manipulate, and the "gaslighted", who struggles to maintain their individual autonomy.[15][16] Gaslighting is typically effective only when there is an unequal power dynamic or when the gaslighted has shown respect to the gaslighter.[17]

Gaslighting is different from genuine relationship disagreement, which is both common and important in relationships. Gaslighting is distinct in that:

  • one partner is consistently listening and considering the other partner's perspective;
  • one partner is consistently negating the other's perception, insisting that they are wrong, or telling them that their emotional reaction is irrational or dysfunctional.

The term gaslighting is more often used to refer to a pattern of behavior over a long duration, not a one-off instance of persuasion, but the method(s) of persuasion is the defining trait of gaslighting behavior.[5] Over time, the listening partner may exhibit symptoms often associated with anxiety disordersdepression, or low self-esteem. Gaslighting is distinct from genuine relationship conflict in that one party manipulates the perceptions of the other.[17]

In psychiatry and psychology

[edit]

The word gaslighting is occasionally used in clinical literature, but is considered a colloquialism by the American Psychological Association.[2][18] Barton and Whitehead described three case reports of gaslighting with the goal of securing a person's involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital, motivated by a desire to get rid of relatives or obtain financial gain: a wife attempting to frame her husband as violent so she could elope with her lover, another wife alleging that her pub-owning husband was an alcoholic in order to leave him and take control of the pub, and a retirement home manager who gave laxatives to a resident before referring her to a psychiatric hospital for dementia and incontinence.[19][20]

In 1977, at a time when published literature on gaslighting was still sparse, Lund and Gardiner published a case report on an elderly woman who was repeatedly involuntarily committed for alleged psychosis, by staffers of her retirement home, but whose symptoms always disappeared shortly after admittance without any treatment. After investigation, it was discovered that her 'paranoia' had been the result of gaslighting by staffers of the retirement home, who knew the woman had suffered from paranoid psychosis 15 years prior.[20]

The research paper, "Gaslighting: A Marital Syndrome", includes clinical observations of the impact on wives after their reactions were mislabeled by their husbands and male therapists.[21] Other experts have noted values and techniques of therapists can be harmful as well as helpful to clients (or indirectly to other people in a client's life).[22][23][24]

In his 1996 book, Gaslighting, the Double Whammy, Interrogation and Other Methods of Covert Control in Psychotherapy and Analysis, Theo L. Dorpat recommends non-directive and egalitarian attitudes and methods on the part of clinicians,[23]: 225  and "treating patients as active collaborators and equal partners".[23]: 246  He writes, "Therapists may contribute to the victim's distress through mislabeling the [victim's] reactions.... The gaslighting behaviors of the spouse provide a recipe for the so-called 'nervous breakdown' for some [victims, and] suicide in some of the worst situations."[23] Dorpat also cautions clinicians about the unintentional abuse of patients when using interrogation and other methods of covert control in Psychotherapy and Analysis, as these methods can subtly coerce patients rather than respect and genuinely help them.[23]: 31–46 

This increased global awareness of the dangers of gaslighting has not been met with enthusiasm by all psychologists, some of whom have issued warnings that overuse of the term could weaken its meaning and minimize the serious health effects of such abuse.[12]

Motivations

[edit]

Gaslighting is a way to control the moment, stop conflict, ease anxiety, and feel in control. It often deflects responsibility however and tears down the other person.[17] Some may gaslight their partners by denying events, including personal violence.[25]

Learned behavior

[edit]

Gaslighting is a learned trait. A gaslighter is a student of social learning. They witness it, experience it themselves, or stumble upon it, and see that it works, both for self-regulation and coregulation.[17] Studies have shown that gaslighting is more prevalent in couples where one or both partners have maladaptive personality traits[26] (such as traits associated with short-term mental illness like depression), substance-induced illness (e.g., alcoholism), mood disorders (e.g., bipolar disorder), anxiety disorders (e.g., PTSD), personality disorder (e.g., BPD, NPD, etc.), neurodevelopmental disorder (e.g., ADHD), or combination of the above (i.e., co-occurrence) and are prone to and adept at convincing others to doubt their own perceptions.[27]

Habilitation

[edit]

It can be difficult to extricate oneself from a gaslighting power dynamic:

  • Those who gaslight must attain greater emotional awareness and self-regulation,[17][failed verification] or;
  • Those being gaslighted must learn that they do not need others to validate their reality, and they need to gain self-reliance and confidence in defining their own reality.[28][17]

Broader use

[edit]

In 2022, Merriam-Webster named "gaslighting" its Word of the Year due to the vast increase in channels and technologies used to mislead and the word becoming common for the perception of deception.[29] The word is often used incorrectly to refer to conflicts and disagreements.[5][18][30] According to Robin Stern, PhD, co-founder of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, "Gaslighting is often used in an accusatory way when somebody may just be insistent on something, or somebody may be trying to influence you. That's not what gaslighting is."[18]

Some mental health experts have expressed concern that the broader use of the term is diluting its usefulness and may make it more difficult to identify the specific type of abuse described in the original definition.[12][5][30] According to a 2022 Washington Post report, it had become a "trendy buzzword" frequently improperly used to describe ordinary disagreements, rather than those situations that align with the word's historical definition.[5]

In medicine

[edit]

Medical gaslighting is an informal term that refers to patients having their real symptoms dismissed or downplayed by medical professionals, leading to incorrect or delayed diagnoses; women are more likely to be affected by the phenomenon.[31]

In politics

[edit]

Gaslighting is more likely to be effective when the gaslighter has a position of power.[32]

In the 2008 book State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind, the authors contend that the prevalence of gaslighting in American politics began with the age of modern communications:[33]

To say gaslighting was started by... any extant group is not simply wrong, it also misses an important point. Gaslighting comes directly from blending modern communications, marketing, and advertising techniques with long-standing methods of propaganda. They were simply waiting to be discovered by those with sufficient ambition and psychological makeup to use them.

The term has been used to describe the behavior of politicians and media personalities on both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum.[33] Some examples include:

  • "Gaslighting" has been used to describe state-implemented psychological harassment techniques used in East Germany during the 1970s and 1980s. The techniques were used as part of the Stasi's (the state security service's) decomposition methods, which were designed to paralyze the ability of hostile-negative (politically incorrect or rebellious) people to operate without unjustifiably imprisoning them, which would have resulted in international condemnation.[38]

In social systems

[edit]

Gaslighting within social systems operates as a mechanism to uphold entrenched power hierarchies, often through subtle and overt forms of manipulation that compel individuals to question their perceptions of reality. One striking manifestation is racial gaslighting, a process deeply embedded within the political, economic, social, and cultural scaffolding of a dominant racial hierarchy. By pathologizing dissent and framing challenges to racial inequities as misperceptions or even assaults on democratic fairness, racial gaslighting coerces marginalized individuals into doubting their experiences within racialized structures.[39][40] This phenomenon extends beyond denial of systemic racism to active recharacterization, where the assertion of racial injustice is reframed as an act of reverse discrimination or irrational sensitivity.[41] Through these narratives, racial gaslighting not only seeks to neutralize resistance but also legitimizes the status quo, ensuring the perpetuation of structural inequities by obscuring their very existence.[original research?]

In the workplace

[edit]

In her 2024 book On GaslightingIndiana University philosopher Kate Abramson offers the example of a boss who minimizes a complaint of harassment or discrimination, possibly filed by a member of a marginalized group.[42] In her framing, the gaslighter says "Don’t be so sensitive. You’re overreacting. You’re imagining things".

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Gaslighting / topic"Google Trends. 16 November 2024. Worldwide / 2004 - present / All categories / Web Search
  2. Jump up to:a b c "APA Dictionary of Psychology"APA.org. American Psychological Association. Archived from the original on 9 July 2021. Retrieved 7 July 2021.
  3. Jump up to:a b "Definition of gaslight (Entry 2 of 2)"Merriam WebsterArchived from the original on 9 July 2021. Retrieved 7 July 2021.
  4. Jump up to:a b c Yagoda, Ben (12 January 2017). "How Old Is 'Gaslighting'?"The Chronicle of Higher EducationArchived from the original on 1 August 2019. Retrieved 2 June 2017.
  5. Jump up to:a b c d e Haupt, Angela (15 April 2022). "How to recognize gaslighting and respond to it"The Washington PostArchived from the original on 24 April 2022. Retrieved 21 April 2022.
  6. ^ "Gaslight"Oxford English DictionaryArchived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 25 October 2021Etymology: from the title of George Cukor's 1944 film Gaslight
  7. ^ Hoberman, J (21 August 2019). "Why 'Gaslight' Hasn't Lost Its Glow"The New York TimesArchived from the original on 22 August 2019. Retrieved 23 August 2019The verb 'to gaslight,' voted by the American Dialect Society in 2016 as the word most useful/likely to succeed, and defined as "to psychologically manipulate a person into questioning their own sanity," derives from MGM's 1944 movie, directed by George Cukor.
  8. ^ Wilkinson, Alissa (21 January 2017). "What is gaslighting? The 1944 film Gaslight is the best explainer"VoxArchived from the original on 23 January 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2017to understand gaslighting is to go to the source. George Cukor's Gaslight. The term 'gaslighting' comes from the movie.
  9. ^ Thomas, Laura (2018). "Gaslight and gaslighting"The Lancet. Psychiatry5 (2): 117–118. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30024-5PMID 29413137Archived from the original on 17 November 2022. Retrieved 1 February 2018.
  10. Jump up to:a b Sweet, Paige L. "How Gaslighting Manipulates Reality"Scientific AmericanArchived from the original on 15 September 2022. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
  11. ^ Metcalf, Allan. "2016 Word of the Year" (PDF). American Dialect Society. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2021. Retrieved 6 January 2017most useful word of the year
  12. Jump up to:a b c "Word of the Year 2018: Shortlist". Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 20 December 2019. Retrieved 15 November 2018.
  13. ^ Portnow, Kathryn E. (1996). Dialogues of doubt: the psychology of self-doubt and emotional gaslighting in adult women and men (EdD). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of EducationOCLC 36674740ProQuest 619244657.
  14. ^ "Gaslighting at Work—and What to Do About It"Harvard Business Review. 2021. Archived from the original on 14 December 2021. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
  15. ^ DiGiulio, Sarah (13 July 2018). "What is gaslighting? And how do you know if it's happening to you?"NBC NewsArchived from the original on 31 December 2021. Retrieved 13 July 2018.
  16. ^ Sarkis, Stephanie (2018). Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People – and Break Free. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-7382-8466-8OCLC 1023486127.
  17. Jump up to:a b c d e f Stern PhD, Robin (19 December 2018). "I've counseled hundreds of victims of gaslighting. Here's how to spot if you're being gaslighted. Gaslighting, explained"VoxArchived from the original on 26 December 2018. Retrieved 3 January 2019.
  18. Jump up to:a b c Holland, Brenna (2 September 2021). "For Those Who Experience Gaslighting, the Widespread Misuse of the Word Is Damaging"Well + GoodArchived from the original on 2 September 2021. Retrieved 2 September 2021.
  19. ^ Barton, Russell; Whitehead, J. A. (21 June 1969). "The gas-light phenomenon"The Lancet293 (7608): 1258–1260. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(69)92133-3ISSN 0140-6736PMID 4182427Archived from the original on 28 February 2023. Retrieved 28 February 2023.
  20. Jump up to:a b Lund, C. A.; Gardiner, A .Q. (1977). "The Gaslight Phenomenon: An Institutional Variant". British Journal of Psychiatry131 (5): 533–34. doi:10.1192/bjp.131.5.533PMID 588872S2CID 33671694. Closed access icon
  21. ^ Gass PhD, Gertrude Zemon; Nichols EdD, William C. (18 March 1988). "Gaslighting: A marital syndrome"Contemp Family Therapy83–16. doi:10.1007/BF00922429S2CID 145019324Archived from the original on 15 October 2021. Retrieved 24 August 2021.
  22. ^ Barlow, D. H. (January 2010). "Special section on negative effects from psychological treatments". American Psychologist65 (1): 13–49. doi:10.1037/a0015643PMID 20063906.
  23. Jump up to:a b c d e Dorpat, Theodore L. (1996). Gaslighting, the Double Whammy, Interrogation, and Other Methods of Covert Control in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason AronsonISBN 978-1-56821-828-1OCLC 34548677. Retrieved 24 April 2021.
  24. ^ Basseches, Michael (April 1997). "A developmental perspective on psychotherapy process, psychotherapists' expertise, and 'meaning-making conflict' within therapeutic relationships: part II". Journal of Adult Development4 (2): 85–106. doi:10.1007/BF02510083S2CID 143991100. Basseches coined the term "theoretical abuse" as a parallel to "sexual abuse" in psychotherapy.
  25. ^ Jacobson, Neil S.; Gottman, John M. (1998). When Men Batter Women: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships. Simon and Schuster. pp. 129–132. ISBN 978-0-684-81447-6. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
  26. ^ Miano, Paola; Bellomare, Martina; Genova, Vincenzo Giuseppe (2 September 2021). "Personality correlates of gaslighting behaviours in young adults"Journal of Sexual Aggression27 (3): 285–298. doi:10.1080/13552600.2020.1850893ISSN 1355-2600S2CID 234287319Archived from the original on 13 March 2024. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
  27. ^ Stout, Martha (14 March 2006). The Sociopath Next Door. Random House Digital. pp. 94–95. ISBN 978-0-7679-1582-3Archived from the original on 13 March 2024. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
  28. ^ Nelson, Hilde L. (March 2001). Damaged identities, narrative repair. Cornell University Press. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-0-8014-8740-8Archived from the original on 13 March 2024. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
  29. ^ "Word of the Year 2022"www.merriam-webster.comArchived from the original on 28 November 2022. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
  30. Jump up to:a b Ellen, Barbara (6 July 2019). "In accusing all creeps of gaslighting, we dishonour the real victims"The GuardianArchived from the original on 6 July 2019. Retrieved 6 July 2019.
  31. ^ Vargas, Theresa (2 April 2022). "Women are sharing their 'medical gaslighting' stories. Now what?"The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. ISSN 0190-8286OCLC 1330888409Archived from the original on 12 August 2022. Retrieved 5 October 2022.
  32. ^ Simon, George (8 November 2011). "Gaslighting as a Manipulation Tactic: What It Is, Who Does It, and Why"CounsellingResource.com: Psychology, Therapy & Mental Health ResourcesArchived from the original on 13 March 2024. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  33. Jump up to:a b Welch, Bryant (2008). State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-37306-1OCLC 181601311.
  34. ^ Ghitis, Frida. "Donald Trump is 'gaslighting' all of us"CNNArchived from the original on 19 April 2021. Retrieved 16 February 2017.
  35. ^ Gibson, Caitlin (27 January 2017). "What we talk about when we talk about Donald Trump and 'gaslighting'"The Washington PostISSN 0190-8286Archived from the original on 22 October 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  36. ^ Cassidy, John (24 February 2025). "The White House Is Gaslighting Americans About Donald Trump's Tariffs"The New Yorker. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  37. ^ FULL: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz Breaks Down Trump's Tariffs, Democrats' Future With CNN's Jake Tapper
  38. ^ Constabile-Heming, Carol Anne; Glajar, Valentina; Lewis, Alison (2021). "Citizen informants, glitches in the system, and the limits of collaboration: Eastern experiences in the cold war era". In Marklund, Andreas; Skouvig, Laura (eds.). Histories of Surveillance from Antiquity to the Digital Era: The Eyes and Ears of Power. Routledge.
  39. ^ Davis, Angelique M.; Ernst, Rose (2 October 2019). "Racial gaslighting"Politics, Groups, and Identities7 (4): 761–774. doi:10.1080/21565503.2017.1403934ISSN 2156-5503We define racial gaslighting as the political, social, economic and cultural process that perpetuates and normalizes a white supremacist reality through pathologizing those who resist. Just as racial formation rests on the creation of racial projects, racial gaslighting, as a process, relies on the production of particular narratives.
  40. ^ Woody, Ashley (22 November 2023). "Racial Gaslighting in a Politically Progressive City"Sociological Inquirydoi:10.1111/soin.12586ISSN 0038-0245...pathologizing those who resist or question the racial status quo. Racial gaslighting emerges from structural forms of racism that cause racialized and multiply-marginalized people to question their perceptions of reality in a racialized society.
  41. ^ Gillborn, David (3 June 2024). White Lies: Racism, Education and Critical Race Theory. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-040-03187-2In many cases, racial gaslighting is simple and crude, with white people informing their minoritized peers that they have simply misunderstood or imagined an offence. Often, the gaslighting goes beyond mere denial and moves into the realms of accusation, as if the protest is actually an assault on democracy and fairness, even that it is racist (against white people).
  42. ^ Stewart, Dodai (16 March 2024). "Book Review: 'On Gaslighting,' by Kate Abramson"The New York Times. Retrieved 2 December 2024.

The Women's History of the Modern World: How Radicals, Rebels, and Everywomen Revolutionized the Last 200 Years: 9780062444035: Miles, Rosalind: Books

Amazon.com: The Women's History of the Modern World: How Radicals, Rebels, and Everywomen Revolutionized the Last 200 Years: 9780062444035: Miles, Rosalind: Books

https://archive.org/details/rosalind-miles-the-womens-history-of-the-modern-world-how-radicals-rebels-and-ev
Kindle  $0.00 or $8.51 to buy
Audiobook
$0.00with membership trial

Paperback  from $7.97
Audio CD
from $21.36

Other Used and New from $7.97






The Women's History of the Modern World: How Radicals, Rebels, and Everywomen Revolutionized the Last 200 Years Paperback – February 2, 2021
by Rosalind Miles (Author)
4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars 71 ratings

The internationally bestselling author of Who Cooked the Last Supper? presents a wickedly witty and very current history of the extraordinary female rebels, reactionaries, and trailblazers who left their mark on history from the French Revolution up to the present day.


Now is the time for a new women’s history—for the famous, infamous, and unsung women to get their due—from the Enlightenment to the #MeToo movement.

Recording the important milestones in the birth of the modern feminist movement and the rise of women into greater social, economic, and political power, Miles takes us through through a colorful pageant of astonishing women, from heads of state like Empress Cixi, Eugenia Charles, Indira Gandhi, Jacinda Ardern, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to political rainmakers Kate Sheppard, Carrie Chapman Catt, Anna Stout, Dorothy Height, Shirley Chisholm, Winnie Mandela, STEM powerhouses Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Rosalind Franklin, Sophia Kovalevskaya, Marie Curie, and Ada Lovelace, revolutionaries Olympe de Gouges, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Patyegarang, and writer/intellectuals Mary Wollstonecraft, Simon de Beauvoir, Elaine Morgan, and Germaine Greer. Women in the arts, women in sports, women in business, women in religion, women in politics—this is a one-stop roundup of the tremendous progress women have made in the modern era.

A testimony to how women have persisted—and excelled—this is a smart and stylish popular history for all readers.
Read less


Report an issue with this product or seller


Print length

432 pages
Language


Editorial Reviews

Review


"Novelist and historian Miles (coauthor, Warrior Women) spotlights “rebel women” from the past two centuries in this brisk and freewheeling history . . . an energetic and enthusiastic survey of feminist boundary pushing." — Publisher’s Weekly

"Herstory with a dash of sarcasm and a wide global and chronological reach." — Kirkus
About the Author


Rosalind Miles, PhD, is a critically acclaimed English novelist, essayist, lecturer, and BBC broadcaster. Her novels—including Guenevere, Queen of the Summer Country and I, Elizabeth—have been international bestsellers. She lives in Hertfordshire, England.

Product details
Publisher ‏ : ‎ William Morrow Paperbacks
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 2, 2021
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Print length ‏ : ‎ 432 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0062444034
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0062444035
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.31 pounds
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5 x 0.97 x 8 inchesBest Sellers Rank: #162,233 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)#165 in Feminist Theory (Books)
#291 in General Gender Studies
#416 in Women in HistoryCustomer Reviews:
4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars 71 ratings




Videos
Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!Upload your video



About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Follow

Rosalind Miles



Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.


Undaunted: How Women Changed American Journalism

Brooke Kroeger
27
Hardcover
-43%$20.05$20.05

List:$35.00$35.00

Just released

The Portable Feminist Reader

25
Kindle Edition
$15.99$15.99


AN ARTIST’S NOTES ON HUMANS AND THE UNIVERSE: The World’s Fundamental Laws of…

V. NovaA mind is an art, sound recording and animation studio—all in one chamber. Explore mechanism of perceptions that shape our thought, memory and vision.
2
Kindle Edition
$3.99$3.99
Next page of related Sponsored Products


Customer reviews
4.6 out of 5 stars
Yours truly,


5.0 out of 5 stars Wonderful bookReviewed in the United States on May 30, 2021
Verified Purchase
Women are not considered a class. This according to the Supreme Court. The reason given? Women didn't have a written history until recently. This means that women can't bring class action lawsuits among other things. For instance, women who worked at Microsoft and were paid less than men for the same job, can't bring a suit for women as a class. Which means that women must bring individual lawsuits. One woman at a time. Which, of course, women can't afford to do. They don't have millions of dollars to spend on lawyers for a lawsuit that will be drug out for years. Another example is the Walmart ruling that women can't sue for employment discrimination. Women collectively can't sue for unfair practices. Each woman singly has to sue.
So, there are real political reasons that women need their own history. Not least because books written by men aren't interested in women and would prefer to erase women from history books, so that it looks like men did everything. It's the great myth we see again and again in history books.
Beyond that, this particular women's history book is wonderful, intelligent and speaks the truth. Reading it actually gave me hope for women, hope for our future. I normally vary my reading, switching between books to give myself a bit of rest from one topic. I was too interested in this book to do that. And I loved the way Rosalind Miles talked about historical events. She was great at cutting through the gaslighting women are exposed to. I highly recommend this book!


14 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport


Patricia Smothers


5.0 out of 5 stars So many heroic women with fascinating lives.Reviewed in the United States on January 15, 2024
Verified Purchase
This book brings stories of extraordinary women that have been left out of our history books. A very enjoyable read and an essential reference on real women’s accomplishments.


3 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport


Rebecca E. McFadden


5.0 out of 5 stars Women stay fast on course to stay above the tirade of inequalityReviewed in the United States on March 8, 2021
Verified Purchase
This is a shocking and a fantastic book.
Very revealing and definitely thought provoking
What’s really shocking is how very little we’ve traveled in our commitment to equality for women.


6 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport


Amazon Customer


5.0 out of 5 stars Delightful read for Women's HistoryReviewed in the United States on April 1, 2021
Verified Purchase
This book combines scholarly research with a quick witted and highly entertaining style of writing. You will learn new facts about well known women in history. More importantly, there are anecdotes about our unsung heroines whose contributions to science changed our world. And then there are the brave advocates who fought for women's rights (human rights) against terrible odds.

Every woman should read this and buy a copy for someone she loves. And be inspired to continue advocating for full and equal rights for all human beings.


9 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport


Joyce H. Coleman


5.0 out of 5 stars Amazing book. A must read for all women.Reviewed in the United States on February 20, 2021
Verified Purchase
This book should be read by every woman. Should be taught in school. Both girls and boys should know and understand this history.


3 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport


Jay D


5.0 out of 5 stars cant put it downReviewed in the United States on April 8, 2021
Verified Purchase
It is disturbing to consider the long history of women being denied their right to equality yet the author kept me unable to put it down. I highly recommend it


5 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport


Natalie Rodriguez


5.0 out of 5 stars Loved it!Reviewed in the United States on June 9, 2021
Verified Purchase
Loved it


2 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport


bookwomen37


5.0 out of 5 stars Important HistoryReviewed in the United States on August 9, 2023

This is a wonderful book. For many years women's contributions have been lost. This book is filled with famous and infamous women and how they shaped history. Many of these women will be familiar but there were some surprises. The short bios are great starting places to learning more about these women. It will make a wonderful addition to your library. Enjoy


One person found this helpful
HelpfulReport

See more reviews


Top reviews from other countries


Suzanne Mercier

5.0 out of 5 stars I got exactly what I bought in less time than they anticipated.Reviewed in Australia on March 27, 2023
Verified Purchase

Thank you. A seamless experience which makes it perfect.

Report

동생 유진님의 책 『생명의 춤』_제 4부 용서_의 요약에 대한 코멘트

ChatGPT - 영성

[가족][영성] 동생 유진님의 책 『생명의 춤』<제 4부 용서>의 요약
===
제4부: 용서 - 사랑은 실패하지 않습니다 (Forgiveness - Love Never Fails)
---
박유진 저자의 『생명의 춤』은 우리가 본질적으로 '빛'의 존재임을 깨닫고, 내면의 태양을 일깨워 세상에 사랑을 발산하는 삶을 살아가도록 안내하는 영적 지침서입니다. 제1부에서 우리의 근원적인 위대함과 빛나는 본성을 선언하고, 제2부에서 세상의 작은 것들에서 '경이로움'을 느끼는 것이 어떻게 근원과의 깊은 연결로 이어지는지 설명합니다. 이어지는 제3부에서는 고통과 두려움에 대한 '저항'을 멈추고 이를 사랑을 발산할 기회로 삼는 '회복'의 과정을 강조합니다. 이러한 깨달음과 실천의 연속적인 여정 속에서 제4부 '용서'는 내면의 상처를 치유하고 본래의 빛나는 자아를 온전히 회복하여 사랑의 진동을 발신하는 결정적인 단계로서 제시됩니다.
이 장에서 저자는 '사랑은 실패하지 않습니다'라는 강력한 메시지를 전달하며, '용서'가 우리가 경험하는 고통과 분리감을 넘어서는 근원적인 해결책임을 역설합니다. 특히 '가슴의 수신과 발신 스위치'라는 비유를 통해 우리가 외부의 메시지를 수신하는 것뿐만 아니라, 사랑과 축복의 에너지를 적극적으로 발신하는 존재임을 깨달아야 한다고 말합니다. 많은 사람들이 수신 스위치가 켜져 있다는 것은 알지만, 발신 스위치의 존재는 잊고 살아간다는 지적은, 우리가 고통의 수신자로 머무르지 않고 능동적인 사랑의 발신자가 되어야 한다는 메시지를 담고 있습니다. 자전거를 처음 탈 때 넘어지더라도 꾸준히 연습하면 익숙해지듯, 가슴의 발신 장치도 연습을 통해 어떤 아픔의 수신 메시지가 오더라도 사랑을 보낼 수 있는 능력을 키울 수 있다고 강조합니다. 이는 우리가 스스로를 피해자로 인식하는 데서 벗어나, 능동적으로 사랑을 창조하고 발산하는 주체, 즉 '창조자'로서의 정체성을 강화하는 과정입니다.
본문에서는 특히 사랑했던 사람들과의 관계, 특히 떠난 이들과의 관계에서 발생하는 서운함과 아픔에 대한 '용서'의 중요성을 다룹니다. 저자는 육체적 죽음을 맞이한 이들이 몸의 한계를 벗어나 '빛으로 돌아갈 때' 자신이 사랑했던 이들에게 충분히 사랑과 축복을 전하지 못했음을 자각한다는 심오한 통찰을 제시합니다. 그리고 그들의 '진심 어린 사과와 사랑'이 지금 우리 주변에 맴돌고 있으니, 우리가 그 마음을 느끼고 의식을 그 방향으로 열기만 하면 된다고 말합니다. 이는 용서가 단순히 우리가 상대를 용서하는 일방적인 행위를 넘어, 죽음과 삶의 경계를 넘어선 영적 교류이자 상호 치유의 과정임을 시사합니다. 우리가 떠난 이들에 대한 서운함을 내려놓고 그들의 진심을 받아들일 때, 우리와 그들 사이의 '가림막'이 사라지고, 그 결과 온 세상과 우주에 대한 우리의 느낌마저 변화하게 됩니다. 사랑했던 사람에 대한 서운함 때문에 가려져 있던 세상이 비로소 '사랑의 세상'으로 열린다는 것입니다.
저자는 이어서 밤하늘의 별들을 바라볼 때 아름다움과 경이로움 대신 텅 빈 공허함을 느끼는 이유를 '서운함의 장막'이 남아있기 때문이라고 설명합니다. 이는 개인적인 감정적 매듭이 우리가 세상의 아름다움을 온전히 경험하고 근원과 연결되는 것을 방해한다는 제2부 '경이로움'의 메시지를 더욱 심화시킵니다. 즉, 용서는 단순히 관계의 회복을 넘어, 세상과의 영적 단절감을 해소하고 존재의 근원적인 아름다움을 다시 경험하게 하는 핵심적인 열쇠가 됩니다.
결론적으로 제4부 '용서'는 『생명의 춤』이 제시하는 영적 여정에서 매우 중요한 전환점입니다. 이는 과거의 상처와 고통에 대한 저항을 멈추고 능동적으로 사랑의 에너지를 발신하는 '회복'의 궁극적인 실현을 의미합니다. 용서를 통해 우리는 '피해자'의 굴레를 벗고 '창조자'로서 자신의 빛을 온전히 발현하며, 타인과의 관계뿐만 아니라 세상, 나아가 존재의 근원과의 단절되었던 연결고리를 회복합니다. '사랑은 실패하지 않습니다'라는 확신 아래, 용서는 우리가 과거의 속박에서 벗어나 현재의 완전한 사랑 안에서 자유롭게 '생명의 춤'을 추고, 그 춤을 통해 세상에 사랑과 생명을 전하는 '오아시스'와 같은 존재가 되는 길을 열어줍니다.

2025/06/08

Sexuality: A Libertarianism.org Guide

Sexuality: A Libertarianism.org Guide
LIBERTARIANISM

SEXUALITY

Combining physical, psychic, and spiritual dimensions, sexuality ranks as one of the core aspects of the human personality. In the past, human sexuality has been regarded as instrumental, that is, subordinate to some other aim, usually procreation. Yet just as there is sex without procreation, so—thanks to advances in medical technology—offspring can be conceived without sexual contact. Sexuality is not tethered to procreation.

For centuries, Western society sought to confine sexual congress within the bounds of marriage. In this context, commercial arrangements (prostitution) and homosexuality were discouraged or proscribed. Today, a broader understanding of sexual freedom prevails.

From a libertarian perspective, all forms of sexual expression are permitted, provided that both parties give informed consent. This provision would exclude sex with animals and children. 

In keeping with the “harm” principles that almost all libertarians embrace, those who are HIV-​positive would be required to engage in sex only after providing their partner with proper notice. Some situations, as when the initiator of sexual relations is a prison guard or a priest, would appear to be instances where full consent could not ordinarily be given inasmuch as the intended partner is so clearly vulnerable. 

However, consensual sadomasochistic (s/​m) relations fall within the compass of voluntarily agreed-​on acts and would be permitted, as would polyamory, which is love and relations among three or more persons. A good maxim to follow is, “Do it if you wish, but cause no harm.”

Libertarians favor elimination of all laws limiting sexual freedom among consenting adults as representing a needless intrusion of the state into the business of the individual. Moreover, libertarians do not support legislation (which exists in some European countries) providing penalties sanctioning speech and writing that demeans sexual minorities. Lack of sympathy for other human groups is regrettable, but freedom of expression mandates that it be tolerated unless specific acts of incitement to violence are involved.

Full enjoyment of sex requires adequate information. Unchecked by correctives, the circulation of popular sex mythology is an obstacle to sexual maturity among young people. Access to sex education is therefore essential. This principle also entails toleration of erotic writings and images, sometimes termed pornography. Contraceptives must be available because sexual freedom should not be obtained at the cost of unwanted pregnancy. Evidence from European countries indicates that ready access to contraceptives reduces rates of abortion—surely a goal embraced by most people.

Just as a wide range of sexual activities should be permitted to flourish, by the same token, there should be no attempt to disparage chastity as an individual decision. The overarching goal is maximizing choice, and choosing not to have sex is a legitimate option. It need hardly be added that one should not have to marry in order to engage in sex. But what obligations does marriage entail? Does each partner agreeing to marry have the right to expect sex? In the past, annulments have been granted on the grounds of nonconsummation. However, as marriage moves closer to centering on agreed-​on arrangements, it would seem that such expectations should be stipulated in advance. Provided that it is understood that this will be the case, there is no reason that the partners in a marriage should not remain chaste.

Some libertarians argue that copulation should be performed in private, but ultimately, from a libertarian perspective, the determination of whether sexual activities can take place hinges on the decision of the owner of the property where it is to occur. Public displays of affection are a different matter. Homosexuals are surely correct in arguing that they should have the same rights in this regard as heterosexuals. Moreover, if sexual self-​affirmation is to be provided for all, solicitation must be accepted.

Some scholars have posited a fundamental division between sex-​positive and sex-​negative societies. 

Ancient Greece, medieval Islam, and traditional Japan have been classified as sex-​positive, whereas Christian polities figure as sex-​negative. This contrast seems too stark. Medieval Islam, for example, was indeed relatively sex-​positive for men, even as it drastically restricted the range of women’s sexuality. Western Europe has evolved over time from a situation in which the Christian churches exercised a large role to a more secular orientation. 

During the 18th century, a group of libertine writers emerged, especially in France—among them Jean-​Baptiste Boyer d’Argens, Jean-​Charles Gervaise de Latouche, and the Marquis D. A. F. de Sade—who vividly highlighted the positive value of sexual expression. 

Working in a different realm, the Italian legal theorist Cesare Beccaria for the first time advocated discarding laws against homosexuality, which he regarded as ineffectual. The idea that, in the absence of express justification, repressive laws should be pruned from the statute books proved influential. 

In the following century, feminists and others stressed the need for access to sexual information, including methods of contraception. It was not until the early 20th century, however, that Kurt Hiller, in his book Das Recht über sich selbst (1908; The Right Concerning Oneself), defended sexual freedom as part of the right to control one’s own body. On a comparative basis, he dealt with such subjects as suicide, abortion, incest, and homosexuality.

Historically, the range of sexual freedom has been quite variable. The boundaries of what is permissible have been affected by theological concepts, by the promotion of state interests, and by concerns within the family unit—often centering on the importance of determining paternity. In the early 21st century, however, many of these concerns have become less salient—at least in advanced, industrialized societies.

The outlook for Western societies is continued affirmation of the expressive dimension of sex as something that should be available to every adult. In many Third World countries, however, the picture is more clouded. In some regions of the world, female genital mutilation, causing a permanent impairment of women’s sexual functioning, remains prevalent. There too homophobia is rife, leading to imprisonment and even execution of those found to have engaged in same-​sex behavior. Libertarians insist that these repressive acts must be opposed and not simply excused on grounds of cultural difference.