I think that LKH frankly might not do as well if she were more accurate, instead of actually catering to the preconceived notions of the vanilla world.
That being said, her entire principle of what is and is not dominant has always rather troubled me. Abuse victims are always weak, and always submissive. They are ruined for life, and can never have any power.
Those portrayed as alpha, or as strong, or dominant, are actually control freaks, and not natural leaders of any real sort. That's actually a weakness all on its own, being a control freak, because the moment anything or anyone steps out of line, they totally LOSE it. They aren't strong, they simply cannot stand to be challenged. BIG difference there.
The thinking is completely black and white, and has nothing to do with the earning of respect, but only the enforcement via force of single wills. Again, that's not being a leader. That's being terrified of any form of challenge at all, which is WEAK.
Natural leaders, on the other hand, inspire loyalty and trust in those who would follow them, and then follow through on that so as to be worthy of same. Someone who's going to wig out the moment the coffee is the wrong shade, the bathroom isn't perfect, or someone voices an opinion other than the one they've forged in iron does NOT make a good leader. Note that when the Richard character actually showed signs of attempting to become one, he had to do it all wrong? This indicates, frankly, that she does not know the difference herself.
Being a true dominant is not just about controlling someone else. It's about controlling oneself, and being worthy and trustworthy to have others put themselves completely in their care. LKH's 'dominant' characters for the most part wouldn't know how to do this if they were handed a full instruction manual.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 08:34 am (UTC)That being said, her entire principle of what is and is not dominant has always rather troubled me. Abuse victims are always weak, and always submissive. They are ruined for life, and can never have any power.
Those portrayed as alpha, or as strong, or dominant, are actually control freaks, and not natural leaders of any real sort. That's actually a weakness all on its own, being a control freak, because the moment anything or anyone steps out of line, they totally LOSE it. They aren't strong, they simply cannot stand to be challenged. BIG difference there.
The thinking is completely black and white, and has nothing to do with the earning of respect, but only the enforcement via force of single wills. Again, that's not being a leader. That's being terrified of any form of challenge at all, which is WEAK.
Natural leaders, on the other hand, inspire loyalty and trust in those who would follow them, and then follow through on that so as to be worthy of same. Someone who's going to wig out the moment the coffee is the wrong shade, the bathroom isn't perfect, or someone voices an opinion other than the one they've forged in iron does NOT make a good leader. Note that when the Richard character actually showed signs of attempting to become one, he had to do it all wrong? This indicates, frankly, that she does not know the difference herself.
Being a true dominant is not just about controlling someone else. It's about controlling oneself, and being worthy and trustworthy to have others put themselves completely in their care. LKH's 'dominant' characters for the most part wouldn't know how to do this if they were handed a full instruction manual.
-Dira-