This Is You, Yes YOU.

Or   –   Things I Am Fucking Sick And Tired Of And Why The Fuck Has Nobody Else Noticed This??
Planet Signgrafix - Hypocrism signage - No  
 
Hopefully the more astute readers amongst you will have noticed my early use of the word  “fuck“.

Did you guess this was a rant?   Well done.   :)

I know I said I was temporarily blogged out, but this rant just boiled up inside me and spilled out all over the text editor.
 

    (it made quite a mess, I can tell you)

 
So I just had to do it.

Just to get my disclaimage out of the road,  this message has been coloured by my rantness.   I hope that doesn’t detract from the content.   I think this message has a lot of important stuff in it, so I ask that you please try to assimilate the message without feeling too affronted by the ranting.   I’m ranting, ok?   Please try to cope.   :)
 
Note:   This post is really, really dull. You have been warned.
 

The Thing Is

Ok, so, the thing is, you know how a lot of bloggers spend a lot of time trying to describe what they see and why they think it’s all wrong and broken?

Well, I’m no different.

This is yet another one of my attempts to clarify what I understand from reading other people’s blogs and interacting with people generally, and highlighting and illustrating how I think they’re doing precisely what they’re objecting to.

I find it emotionally tiring to embark on such exercises, especially when I feel that what I’m trying to say isn’t being understood. But my ethical convictions dictate that I must speak out against any transgressions I come across, and so the strength of those convictions leads me to try yet again to speak out against the transgressions I have come across.

I hope this effort is more successful than my previous attempts.   I’ve already had to be a fuckload more explicit than I thought would be necessary.   I just don’t know how much  more  fucking explicit I’m supposed to be.   I mean, how much convincing does anybody need?
 

    People perpetrate exactly what they object to other people perpetrating.

 
In order to convince some of the transgressors that they are, in fact, transgressing, what am I supposed to do, hire a skywriter?   Make a movie?   Build a thirty metre tall billboard with diagrams on it?

I’m telling you, this has been an uphill journey.   Hopefully, this time, my efforts will begin to get the job done.
 
(fingers crossed)
 

Welcome To My Effort

I really recommend that you read my sources, because without reading the full context in which they were written, the elements I pick out and identify as problematic may be difficult to grasp fully.

You may find them to be a bit train-wrecky in the logic department.

Whether you agree with me and think I’m the best thing since sliced bread, or if you disagree and think I’m spewing nothing but horseshit, I feel that it’s important for you to have the full information on which to base your own assessments.

You can read them after or before you read this, I don’t think it matters.
 

About Lady Lubyanka

I am a 45 year old musician, and also a multisexual, polyamourous, Jewish, socially dominant woman within my romantic BDSM relationships.
This entry was posted in exclusion, fuckwitism, fuckwittedness, Human Beingness 101, Hypocrism, Psychology, Rant, Rantfest, Respect. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to This Is You, Yes YOU.

  1. Tom Allen says:

    ::ahem::

    ::cough cough::

    Feeling better now?

    Last week I was involved in a comment war on another blog in which a man who had been decrying the lack of tolerance and patience of a certain group declared his wish that all those who did not believe in (his version of) patience and tolerance should be rounded up and shot.

    Some people serve to prove their own points by way of example.

    As to the chastity groups, well, personally I do find that some of the “advice” is horrific, although it’s more because shy newbies who are asking about the basics of keyholding are often scared off by the less-than-helpful responses suggesting that all men wearing devices need to be locked down permanently while they – the women – go satisfy their urges with multiple other partners.

    But what do I know? I still think that dommish women who dress in leather and shiney things are hot.

  2. My goodness…

    …that was epic.

  3. susans.pet says:

    I am lost. On what should I comment?

  4. Ms. Madison says:

    Wow. OK, first, I think that both bloggers were identifying real problems that exist and are annoying — first, that men online tend to make everything about their own sexual desires, and second, implicit sexism in media portrayals of femdom. I think it’s important that people can get angry and rant about these problems, even if they sometimes exhibit hypocrisy or hypocrism.

    The thing about having high ideals is that we will always fall short of them at some point, and then be guilty of hypocrisy. For example, an environmentalist can recycle religiously for ten years, then throw away one aluminum can and – BAM – be a hypocrite. But, does this undo all the good from his previous efforts? In my opinion, the only way to completely avoid hypocrisy, since perfection is not an option, is to avoid having ideals and be lazy and selfish.

    Moreover, some of the bad behavior being ranted about in the referenced blogs falls neatly under the characteristics described in your “do me!!!” post.

    OK, that was long. To be short: I am more offended by “do me!!!” behavior than I am by hypocrisy because I think a little hypocrisy is unavoidable and totally human. “Do me!!!” behavior pisses me off so much that I love to read any and all rants about it.

    I also enjoy your blog very much. It makes me think more and harder than other writings on kink and femdom. I hope that this post leads to constructive debate, as you intended.

  5. Ms. Madison says:

    Also, note that allegations of hypocrisy tend to immediately end a conversation and make everyone defensive. I think that this is the intention of some people who cry hypocrisy — they want to stifle debate about something that makes them uncomfortable and instead make the discussion all about other people’s character flaws.

    I’m not saying that hypocrisy is good. But, there are worse things. As the saying goes, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”

  6. Hello Tom :)

    (have you seen my sidebar recently?)   ;)

    ::ahem::

    ::cough cough::

    Feeling better now?

    Heh, I don’t think I’ll be feeling better anytime soon. The whole thing depresses me, a lot.

    I have had some indications that my efforts were, at least in one case, utterly unsuccessful.

    So no, I don’t feel better, but thank you very much for asking.   :)

    (well, maybe I feel a bit better cos of you stopping by, will that do?)

    Last week I was involved in a comment war on another blog in which a man who had been decrying the lack of tolerance and patience of a certain group declared his wish that all those who did not believe in (his version of) patience and tolerance should be rounded up and shot.

    Some people serve to prove their own points by way of example.

    You involved in a comment war?   Nevah!   ;)

    I agree that some people serve to prove their own points by way of example, I had included a section sort of about that at the bottom, but the post just got too long.   The problem with this is, the kind of example it is, and who’s following.

    I’m going to post that section in an out-takes post along with the other stuff I couldn’t fit.

    The ones such as you mentioned are easy because they are blatantly obvious, even to those with the perceptual potential of fruit loop.   Unfortunately there are many, many others which aren’t so obvious.

    Two of my problems are:

    1. The examples I referenced are just too much below most people’s radar for them to notice, and

    2. I think there is a significant difference between doing something transgressy oneself, and involving other people in committing transgressions.

    The bloggers I referenced in this post are intelligent, charismatic, stylish, and compelling people, and from what I’ve observed, they successfully incite others to follow their example.

    I’ve got huge problems with that.

    What I want is to encourage people to really examine what they’re doing, saying, thinking, and deciding, and then to examine (and if necessary, reconsider) decisions and behaviour based on that.

    If people say they don’t like this or that, then I logically conclude that they’d rather not be perpetrating this or that.

    And yet they so very often do it just the same.

    As to the chastity groups, well, personally I do find that some of the “advice” is horrific, although it’s more because shy newbies who are asking about the basics of keyholding are often scared off by the less-than-helpful responses suggesting that all men wearing devices need to be locked down permanently while they – the women – go satisfy their urges with multiple other partners.

    I agree that a lot of the “advice” presented in messages in those groups is horrific, no question. Having said that, I didn’t think that the quoted responses fit into the “horrific” category, not compared to some of the ones I’ve seen.   If they did, then of course the response provided privately would have to as well, because it transgressed in precisely the same way, if more subtly.

    I consider a response which may or may not be from the author’s own imagination to be hugely different to a person denigrating other peoples’ responses from some moral high horse, providing precisely equivalent responses themselves, and inciting others to do similarly.

    On an off-topic note, I was interested to read that quoted message with the question, because I’d seen it before (as I’m sure you have too).   Obviously that message had been posted in multiple chastity groups.   I found myself wondering if the message really was from a woman, even though the message in it seemed very woman-like to me.

    I am aware and appreciate that not everybody does everything the same way. Having said that, I myself only belong to one chastity group, and if I were seeking answers to questions such as those (as I occasionally am), I can’t think of a single reason why I would join more than one group to find them.   I know I’d feel overwhelmed if I asked a question in more than one group, and got deluged with responses from lots of people in multiple groups.   Why would I join more than one group for questions such as that?   I am doubting the veracity of the poster on that score.

    But that’s totally off-topic, I digress, so sue me.   ;)

    But what do I know? I still think that dommish women who dress in leather and shiney things are hot.

    Fantastic, I’m so glad.   :D

  7. Wow. OK, first, I think that both bloggers were identifying real problems that exist and are annoying […] I think it’s important that people can get angry and rant about these problems

    I agree that the world we live in has people in it who create and perpetrate real problems.   I agree with the reality of the problems, and I agree completely with the importance of people regularly feeling and expressing their anger and ranting about those and other problems.   I totally support all that.

    I mean, I should, I love ranting.   :D

    I think that both bloggers were identifying real problems that exist and are annoying — first, that men online tend to make everything about their own sexual desires, and second, implicit sexism in media portrayals of femdom.

    Without getting into those specific problems right now, which have been covered very well elsewhere, I agree that this is an important point. My reason for that is because one of my main issues with the identification of such problems (as opposed to the problems themselves), is that those problems are often used as a reason or excuse or cover for the transgressions of the ranter.

    The problem I have been trying to identify, is that whatever OTHER people do or do not do, this does not create a consequence-free zone for other people to commit transgrssions themselves.

    I feel really strongly that ALL of us need to take a whole lot more care and thought with what we say and do.

    I have a huge problem with people who point at others, proclaim their badness, and in so doing perpetrate their own badness. I cannot overlook people’s transgressions simply because they are pointing at other people and complaining how much worse they are. I cannot ignore the fact that we are all accountable for our own behaviour, no matter what anybody else does.

    I have heard stories about law breakers who were injured during their perpetration of a crime, and who went on to take legal action against the people they were committing the crime against, for compensation for their injuries. Most people I know dismiss the idea of such legal action as being ridiculous.

    I think that the transgressions I am trying to identify fit into that category.

    In my opinion, the only way to completely avoid hypocrisy, since perfection is not an option, is to avoid having ideals and be lazy and selfish.

    I’m not talking about requiring a complete elimination of all hypocrisy, hypocrism, One True Way-ism, or any other -ism. I agree that some transgressions are bound to happen because we are all human and none of us are perfect. I completely agree with you, and accept and support that.

    Having said that, I don’t think that some people’s transgressions somehow create permission for others to transgress in whatever way.

    I disagree that avoiding having ideals and being lazy and selfish is the only way to reduce existing amounts of unacceptable behaviour.

    To be short: I am more offended by “do me!!!” behavior than I am by hypocrisy because I think a little hypocrisy is unavoidable and totally human. “Do me!!!” behavior pisses me off so much that I love to read any and all rants about it. […] I’m not saying that hypocrisy is good. But, there are worse things.

    I agree that do me!!! behaviour is offensive.

    Heh, I’d better, since I’ve ranted about that recently.   :p

    Having said that, I don’t think do me!!! behaviour in itself allows for other transgressions, solely by virtue of it being “worse” than other transgressions.

    Just as I agree with you that a little hypocrisy is bound to happen as a result of being human, I also feel that a little do me!!! is just as bound to happen as a result of being human.

    I disagree that some infractions make any other infractions somehow acceptable, simply by virtue of them being “worse”. I don’t think this is a contest.

    I also think there is a big difference between committing an infraction oneself by accident as a result of being human, and inciting others to commit that same infraction in the name of some other, “worse” infraction.

    I do hold individuals responsible for their own behaviour.   I don’t hold one person responsible for the behaviour of another, whom they may have instructed to do something, and who then goes and does it.   But I do hold a person responsible for their personal involvement in their own transgressions which may include inciting others to transgress.

    Also, note that allegations of hypocrisy tend to immediately end a conversation and make everyone defensive. I think that this is the intention of some people who cry hypocrisy — they want to stifle debate about something that makes them uncomfortable and instead make the discussion all about other people’s character flaws.

    I think you’re right that some people’s allegations of hypocrisy do lead to defensive behaviour, and I think that is most likely because the defenders are defending against actual attacks committed by the allegators (allegers?   I like “allegators” better).   I think that feeling and behaving defensively in the face of something needing defending against is completely reasonable.

    Whether stifling debate is the intention of some of the hypocrisy allegators, I don’t know.

    I certainly hope there is no debate-stifling going on here, heheh.   I like debate, and I hope lots of people join in.   :)

    I think my overall intention was to indicate that pointing out other people’s transgressions is never a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for our own responsibility and accountability for our own behaviour.

    I also enjoy your blog very much. It makes me think more and harder than other writings on kink and femdom.

    Thank you very much!   :D   That is certainly a compliment and a half.   :D

    I hope that this post leads to constructive debate, as you intended.

    Me too!   Come on debate!   Do me!!!

    Ooops, I hypocrised.

    And do me!!!‘d.

    I’m a bad, bad person.   ;)

  8. Eileen says:

    Hmm…I know Maymay commented on this post. Did he get spammed, perhaps?

  9. Tom Allen says:

    (have you seen my sidebar recently?) ;)

    I mainly use the WordPress feed reader.

    ::clicks various linky things::

    ::scrolls down::

    ::keeps scrolling::

    ::damn, she rants a lot::

    ::stops::

    ::laughs::

    ;-)

    Thank you, Ms. Lubyanka.

  10. Tom Allen says:

    1. The examples I referenced are just too much below most people’s radar for them to notice

    I’m going to suggest that some of the examples you’ve cited have been noticed, but the offender has done a rather effective job of steamrolling over the objections.

  11. Pingback: “This Is You” - Outtakes « Lady Lubyanka

  12. I’m going to suggest that some of the examples you’ve cited have been noticed, but the offender has done a rather effective job of steamrolling over the objections.

    That’s true, I’d quite forgotten that, you’ve made an excellent point.

    Steamrollering wasn’t something I considered as relevant to my premise, since I had been regarding it as simple reiterations of the transgressions.   But you’re right, the steamrollering was indeed in response to objections.

    I don’t know if the steamrollering was effective in the sense of being convincing, but it clearly was effective in (mostly) silencing the public voices of objectors who may not have wanted to pursue the discussion in the face of such invalidative steamrollerage.   I hope I’m made of sterner stuff.

    We’ll see.

    If you read me writing about how I embarked on a new steamy torrid affair with fillings and just a   hint   of lemon juice, you’ll know a steamroller will have blini‘d me.

    Ok, let me clarify:

    The examples I referenced, and others like them, either

    1. Are too much below most people’s radar for them to notice, or

    2. Have apparently not registered as significant enough with the people who document such things, to result in the transgressions being noted and documented anywhere other than in comments submitted for publication to, and under the control of the transgressor, or

    3. Have apparently registered as significant enough for some people to object, but who lacked the cojones to carry through and continue to assert their objections in the face of a steamrollering transgressor.

    There, is that better?

    I’m grateful for your suggestion thingy, thank you.   :)

    ps:   You’re very welcome for the other thingy.   :)

  13. Tom Allen says:

    Further reflection on this has compelled me to add that what you are describing is a fairly typical property of human nature, often referred to as “backlash.” People who feel marginalized within certain sub-groups often lash out at the very groups in which they have taken shelter when their own perspectives differ from the prescribed culture.

    Often, this happens when the dissenters try to distance themselves (or their overt philosophical differences) from the principal sub-culture; some people who enjoy BDSM try to distance themselves from “professional” practitioners, even as others in the sub-culture embrace the professionals. Or some women – for whatever reason – reject the stereotyped “leather & thigh boot” dominatrix model; yet instead of simply doing their own thing, engage in tirades proclaiming the inherent “wrongness” of those models – completely ignoring the underlying cultural reasons for such dress.

    I think that backlashers of any sub-culture fail to acknowledge the irony, let alone hypocrosityishness not out of a sense of logical inappropriateness, but simply out of misplaced frustration that engenders some sense of entitlement.

  14. I had a lot of trouble working out what you were saying Tom, I think you may have put it kind of convoluted.

    Either that, or my other brain cell went on holiday and didn’t bother to tell me.

    (they never write, they never call…)

    If I understood you correctly, then I think I agree with you.   If you’re saying what I think you’re saying, I have never heard this called “backlash”, but this may simply be a culture/language/foreign-version-of-English thingy.   Let me try to rephrase in a way my remaining brain cell can manage, and then if you wouldn’t mind, you can confirm if I got what you intended, ok?

    (I will pretend that you have given your consent to this, and will carry on)

    First, I have personal issues with terms such as “sub-group” or “sub-culture”. Those terms feel kind of denigrating to me, and so I don’t like using them.   So I use terms such as “diversity” instead.

    As far as I can work out, you’re essentially saying that

    1.   Members of a less mainstream diversity tend to lash out most often and most strongly against those who are closest to their own diversity.

    2.   The lasher-outers also attempt to distance themselves from those who are closest to their diversity, possibly in an effort to establish their “specialness”.

    3.   One feature of being a human being, is that repeated exposure to a certain behaviour can often result in that behaviour being unconsciously emulated, such as learning to marginalise oneself after having felt repeatedly, habitually, and therefore familiarly marginalised by the larger population.

    4.   The lasher-outers may have learnt to marginalise themselves from others, without differentiating between whom they choose to marginalise themselves from.   (I added 3 and 4 to your stuff to make the logic go all nice from 2 to 5, and to make places for some of the other puzzle pieces to fit)

    5.   The lasher-outers tend to spend more time lashing out than they spend on simply doing their own thing.   (I have a feeling that the part about cultural reasons for “dominatrix” dress might be irrelevant in the more general synopsis)

    6.   The lasher-outers tend to minimise, dismiss, denigrate and/or invalidate those who are closest to their diversity, who don’t fit into their own ideas of what’s good, right, proper, whatever;   possibly because this may reduce their feelings of being “special”, and possibly because they themselves have become familiar with minimisation, dismissal, denigration and/or invalidation.

    7.   Feelings of their identity being threatened may also play a part in this.   (note the puzzle pieces I referred to earlier)

    8.   The lasher-outers’ frustration and anger about being marginalised by the larger population can spawn a feeling of being entitled to compensation for their suffering.

    9.   Instead of allowing for diversity within their own diversity, they may try to exact compensation for their suffering from people closest to their diversity, as if they were the ones who caused their suffering, and possibly because they present the most convenient targets.

    10. Because the lasher-outers’ targets may have grown from similar experiences of marginalisation and so on as described above, their response to being targeted may be similar to the lasher-outers’ behaviour, and usually nobody comes out of that well.   (I added in those conclusions to your stuff as I understood it)

    If my synopsis fits what you intended to say, then I might venture a speculation (even though I eschew the topics of religion and politics in my discussions) that the same synopsis more or less precisely fits the situation in my home country.

    In other words, same problem, different symptoms.

    If my synopsis doesn’t fit what you intended to say, then I will unfortunately need to ask you for further clarification, if you would be so kind?

    Equally unfortunately, I tried to run all this by kvetch, and he was utterly unable to follow any of it (which is not usually a problem for him, I assure you).   So I don’t know whether either of us are making sense or not.   However, I feel quite clear on what I was trying to say, so I’m going to try posting it anyhow and see what happens.

    I look forward to finding out.   :)

  15. Tom Allen says:

    Actually, you did a very good job of stretching out my brief summary.

    I’m surprised you haven’t run across the term “cultural backlash,” although perhaps because my educational background was in psych and sociology, I’m more likely to apply those perspectives when I look at certain situations.

    And while you may not like the term “sub-culture”, there is no denigration implied; I’m trying to define a sub-set of a particular interest group. Keep in mind that this applies in very general terms, and across most socio/political and yes, even religious spectrums.

    It’s possible that kvetch isn’t following because in many respects the concept is counter-intuitive; one would think that a splinter group would have many things in common with the parent group, and would therefore be on amiable terms. Unfortunately, as you’ve mentioned, the splinter groups tend to work overtime to create some kind of distance in order to differentiate themselves.

    In the US, it’s amusing to see this happen with Christian churches that have schismed – the break-away groups have much more abhorrence of the original church than they do of, say, completely different religions.

    People are weird.

  16. Actually, you did a very good job of stretching out my brief summary.

    Phew, that’s a relief!   Thank you.   :)

    And while you may not like the term “sub-culture”, there is no denigration implied

    I know, that was why I said it was a personal issue, and not an issue I had with you.   :)

    In the US, it’s amusing to see this happen with Christian churches that have schismed – the break-away groups have much more abhorrence of the original church than they do of, say, completely different religions.

    People are weird.

    I don’t think this behaviour is weird at all, I think it makes perfect sense.   As far as I can tell, it fits perfectly with what we’ve been talking about.   One of the things I left out of my synopsis of your synopsis, is a reason why people tend to lash out at those closest to them (as opposed to, say, lashing out at people at random).

    And the primary reason I think that people (all people, not just those members of non-mainstream diversities) lash out most at those closest to them, is comprised of the following elements:

    1.   Conflict is not possible if there is no common basis over which to conflict.

    2.   The closer one person is to another person, group, or diversity, the more commonalities there are, and therefore the larger the existing common basis over which conflict is possible.

    3.   The more distant one person is from another person, group, or diversity, the smaller the common basis over which conflict is possible.

    For example, siblings conflict with each other frequently and with enthusiasm;   those same siblings conflict entirely less frequently and less emotively with their peers;   the same siblings conflict even less frequently with strangers, and I don’t think that’s totally because they spend less time with strangers.

    The religious schisms you mentioned fit perfectly into this scenario;   the churches most alike, which are closest to each other, have the largest number of common features over which conflict is possible.   The further distant they are regarding common features, the fewer reasons they have to actually conflict.

    My experience is that people behave completely logically;   behaviour only appears illogical to an observer when all of the elements contributing to the logical decision-making are not known to the observer.   I think that the logic exists, whether or not it is known.

    My experience is that a person might well not know the logic behind their own behaviour.   But I think that logic is there, regardless.

    Since my experience has led me to conclude that people are not weird (at least in this way), and that they are in fact perfectly logical (whether they know it or not), my project is to gather information until the logic behind the behaviour becomes clear to me.

    I’ve been working on a book about this.   This blog (including the comments) is helping me clarify my thinking on it.   :)

    ps:   I disagree that the reason kvetch had trouble with my synopsis is because of difficulties with these concepts, whether they are counter-intuitive or not.   It might have been issues with my wording.   But as neither of us knows why he had so much trouble with it, our quest to find out continues.   :)

  17. baby says:

    “heteronormative paradigm” – WOW – I promise I won’t be using it in my Blog… ;) but I cannot promise that I am not going to run out of here to go get some blintzes for lunch! If it takes extreme emotional surges for you to write a great and heated post like this – power to those who give you reason to pour it all out – I enjoyed the read, that’s basically it! Back to my place in the Peanut Gallery!

  18. I enjoyed the read, that’s basically it! Back to my place in the Peanut Gallery!

    Thank you very much!   :D

  19. Pingback: The Pot Calling The Kettle Black « Lady Lubyanka

  20. Pingback: Bitchy Jones Instructs Dissenters To Stop Dissenting « Lady Lubyanka

  21. Pingback: Rant - Accessibility And Exclusion « Lady Lubyanka

  22. Pingback: Comment For Maymay | Lady Lubyanka

Spill yo oh-PIN-yunz after the tone ...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s