#abuse advice

[arian-archivist-11]

Don't let abuse slide. Call it out if and when you can. Set boundaries.

Fight back at your own pace of course. You need to be assured in the truth to truly and effectively fight back. As assured as you'd say the sky is blue.

You are right and there is NOTHING wrong with standing up for yourself. You do yourself good by doing so. That's how we learn and grow.

[reasonsforhope]

I don't know who needs to hear this, but especially with the end of the school year coming up soon, and a bunch of people about to leave high school or about to leave college, I just wanted to say:

Being an adult can be really nice, actually!!!

Like, okay, yeah, life can be fucking stressful sometimes, and there's definitely an annoying amount of paperwork.

But me and just about every single adult I know will agree: I would never choose to go back to being a teenager, even if I somehow could.

Insert obvious disclaimer that nothing is universal. But for people worried about aging or graduating into the next chapter of life, here's some words of reassurance:

When you're a teenager, your brain is extra mean to you. Like, neurologically. All of the changes it's undergoing really, really increase rates of depression/anxiety/etc. A lot of the time, literally just not being a teenager anymore is really good for your mental health

Less than five months out of high school, everyone I knew my age was like "Thank fuck we're no longer in high school." Once you leave high school and adolescence there's really just such a dramatic drop in petty bullshit. Shit that would have been a huge social humiliation or gossip in high school is really often just like, "Hate that for you, man." Boom, done.

When you're a teenager or a brand new adult, you're encountering so many problems for the first time ever. When you're older, you just. Have learned how to handle a lot more things. You know what to do way more often and that builds confidence

When you're an adult, other people generally don't care if you don't do things perfectly, because jobs and life don't work like grades. This was such a trip to learn, honestly? But when you are an adult or have a job the bar for success is usually just "Did you do the thing?" or "Did you do the thing well enough that it works?" or "Did you show up to work for your whole shift and look like you were doing things?"

Similarly, if you're about to graduate college and you're really stressed about it, fyi just about everyone I knew in college ended up very quickly going "wow, 'real life' is way easier." Admittedly I went to a school full of very stressed out perfectionists and the like, so I can't promise this is universal, but there's a very real chance that life will in many ways get easier when you graduate

WAY MORE CONTROL OF YOUR OWN LIFE

Literally I cannot overstate that last point. As an adult, you are (barring certain disabilities or shitty circumstances like abusive family/the criminal justice system/etc.) able to make most of your own decisions. If you want to rearrange your furniture, you can. If you want to eat tater tots at midnight, you can. If you want to get yourself a little treat, you can. You can sign contracts and make your own legal and medical decisions and not need a parent or guardian signature for just about anything ever again

You generally learn how to give fewer fucks

The people around you have also generally learned how to give fewer fucks

Even when things are shitty, being able to choose what kind of shitty a lot of the time can really be worth an awful lot

[shamebats]

[imbecominggayer]

Writing Advice: Give Your Characters Agency

Have you ever read a story where it felt like the protagonist was being personally guided by the author?

When a character has to always rely on their love interest, friends, allies, and even enemies in order to get from point A to point B

When the only reason a character is even on their journey is because they're the "Chosen One" or God themselves is literally dragging this random along.

Well, you probably hated this character because they lacked Agency.

Agency is defined as when a person makes a specific action, hoping to garner a certain result.

Agency is goal, motive, and plan. A person wants(motive) something(goal) so they try to get it(action).

Based on this definition, it's incredibly hard to write a compelling protagonist and story without agency.

Agency is what makes an interesting plot as plot is based on "what is a character willing to do in order to get their goal".

If your protagonist never tries to do anything and whenever they do try to do something, it never impacts the surrounding world either negatively or positively, you've managed to written a story that has squandered all it's potential.

You might be saying "What about characters who are trapped in these circumstances, trapped in general, or Fate?"

Well let me tell you, I don't know where you got the assumption that all abused/kidnapped individuals just stopped thinking and desiring when the abuse happened but it's wrong!

Maybe your abused character is trying to leave their circumstances so they make some decisions to seperate themselves.

Maybe your abused character is trying to help their abuser so they make decisions that help their abuser.

Maybe they're planning something!

Also, for the Fate thing. You could have your characters actively fighting Fate? Nevermind if they succed or fail!

You could have the existence of Fate be a plot twist?

There is just no proper excuse to not write a character that doesn't make decisions to get what they want!

If you didn't want to write a Point Of View character that interacts with the world you could've written an omniscient character who is travelling around. Or a narrator who is reading the journals of the actual main character(like in Book Thief).

If you didn't want to make this character have an impact on the world, you could have chosen a different character to be the protagonist!

[serpentface]

Scenes from The Baby Wars Part One: The First One

[Hibrides never wanted to be a mother (though the concept of childbearing has always occurred to her as 'inevitable and necessary'), underwent very severe post-partum depression, never really bonded with the infant, and was extremely uncomfortable with nursing her (they had a wet nurse who covered most of it).

Brakul ended up being the Designated Housewife throughout Erubi's infancy and was effectively the only member of the household providing parental care, was Extremely bitter with Hibrides for not really wanting anything to do with her daughter (among other things), and was raised in a context where fathers allowing their infants to comfort nurse on them is a standard practice (which is not widely conceptualized as a Thing men can do in the Wardi cultural sphere and comes off as bizarre to the rest of his household).

These combined factors lead to tense standoffs where he looms behind Hibrides trying to guilt her into Feeding The GodDamn Baby while looking, from her perspective, like he's trying his absolute hardest to breastfeed.]

[zivazivc]

the morning (afternoon?) after this messy stunt. Floyd got off too easy in my opinion, but it's hard for Les to stay mad at him when he makes those sad pouting faces... 🤦

If you think Floyd's being really dumb at the start of this comic before getting a reality check, you have to take into account that he's madly lovesick and was feeling very smug atm; he's also a 15yo pop troll who thinks making out with someone means they're together now; and he assumed Les's sour mood was entirely the result of a nasty hangover...

P.S. They forgot about Hed lol (I almost forgot about him too, drew him just before posting lmao)

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Do you know if Riddle, or Tray, ever stands up to his mother? I think i saw it in a Pinterest post once of teen Riddle being slapped by his mom and Tray taking him away.

His background is sadder than Shoto Todoroki from BNHA

We don’t really get to hear about how things are going back home with Mrs. Rosehearts outside of one brief instance. In 4-3, Riddle is leaving for winter break and mentions he intends on speaking with his mother, though he isn’t optimistic about her listening.

Trey states in the same part of the story that he isn’t allowed at Riddle’s house (because Mrs. Rosehearts has banned him). However, Riddle is still invited to visit him and Chenya at the Clover family bakery (though it’s very unlikely Riddle would be able to, since he hasn’t canonically seen Chenya again since the unbirthday party of book 1).

We never get a follow-up on how the conversation between Riddle and his mother went. It’s never touched upon again, and his mom isn’t really brought up beyond this case. (I did happen to write a short piece about Trey, Riddle, and Mrs. Rosehearts interacting though, if you were interested in seeing my own interpretation of this idea.)

Riddle spends most of his time at NRC since it’s a boarding school, meaning there are few opportunities for him to directly interact with his mother. Even if Mrs. Rosehearts were readily accessible to him, I highly doubt we would get to witness Riddle or Trey doing much to talk back to her. As we see in book 4, Riddle is still quite meek and uncertain when it comes to speaking with his mom. Trey, meanwhile, is generally very non-confrontational and may still be dealing with his own complicated feelings about interfering with what are family matters. (Recall that the last time he encouraged Riddle to be adventurous, it resulted in his friend being severely punished and Trey may harbor guilt over this occurrence.) I feel that neither of them would realistically develop the courage to talk back to Mrs. Rosehearts when only like half a year has passed since Riddle’s OB incident as opposed to like seventeen years of Riddle living under her rules.

***CONTENT WARNING: I will be discussing abuse at length under the cut, so please be advised to avoid reading further if the topic makes you uncomfortable.***

Regarding the comic you saw on Pinterest, it is fan art. That is in no way canonical; Mrs. Rosehearts may be very stern and have a temper, but she has never slapped or otherwise put a hand on Riddle. The closest thing we get to a slap is this panel from the manga adaptation, which isn’t even a slap. You can tell from the movement lines and the FWP sfx that Mrs. Rosehearts is just quickly pulling her arm away since Riddle is trying to latch onto it in an attempt to get her to listen to his protests. There is also no mark on Riddle or harsh slap sfx to indicate contact was made.

Now then 💦 There's something very serious and relevant to this ask I'd actually like to discuss, so I hope you'll stick around to hear me out on this.

I know none of us really like Mrs. Rosehearts (which is fair, she has done a lot of terrible things to her son). However, I think it's dangerous for us to speak about her as though she's a total monster and nothing more than a monster. I'm NOT going to stand here and advocate that she has done nothing wrong (she definitely has committed many wrongs). What I'm saying is that I don't agree with her being treated like "just" an abuser.

Let's say we do demonize Mrs. Rosehearts. We see only her negative traits and allow those to define her entire character. This creates a scenario in which she is alienated and dehumanized, left as a caricature of a woman that is solely known for hurting her child. But the thing is, this ISN’T how abuse really works. Few abusers are completely wicked people through and through. Part of the reason why it is so difficult for victims to leave their abusers is because abusers almost never start off abusive. They usually act totally normal, and the abuse often doesn’t come until later or specific situations arise. It creeps up on you in an almost insidious manner, and you don’t expect it coming. I’d also like to mention that abusers often don’t act with the intentional thought of, “Yeah, what I’m doing/saying is abusive”. Abusers typically justify their actions or convince themselves they are acting out of goodness. They don’t do bad things “because they’re bad people”, they do bad things because they think they’re GOOD people. Some abusers may even be victims themselves.

By painting abusers (even fictional ones) as cartoonishly evil, irredeemable, or always cruel, it makes it harder for us to believe the very real danger that we, whom we see as “good” people, could become “bad” ourselves. It makes it harder to believe victims when they report abuse because “oh, the abuse isn’t THAT bad”. It erases the idea that abusers are also human, and that humans have the capacity to be awful sometimes or to perpetuate hurt. It makes it so much harder to identify abuse because we’d only be looking for the most extreme examples of it rather than noticing the small, subtle signs. By “othering” abusers, it’s inadvertently denying so many nuances of abuse... which ultimately is counterproductive.

I would like to point out that even in the example provided of another abusive parent, Endeavor is portrayed with some nuance. He physically and verbally abused his wife, neglected the children he deemed worthless, and pushed the child he deemed to be his successor to the brink. However, Endeavor is also shown to remember a detail as small as his (arranged) wife’s favorite flower when she only told him about it once. He is notably much more lenient when training his first son, who didn’t have the ideal Quirk he sought. Endeavor at one point even confesses to pursuing being a hero in order to avoid the demands of fatherhood, which demonstrates a realistic insecurity and vulnerability… his humanity.

The same could be true for Mrs. Rosehearts. We only assume he is “just an abuser” because we see her in such a limited scope. There are valid reasons to believe why she is a “good” person outside of how we see her acting in Riddle’s recollections, and this may help to explain why Riddle feels so hesitant to “stand up” to her. I would really recommend reading this post, which goes a lot more in-depth about the complications surrounding Riddle’s relationship with his mother. Again, I am in NO WAY defending Mrs. Rosehearts; I am only pointing out that abusers—no matter how horrible their actions—have identities beyond the label of “abuser” that should be acknowledged.

[aro-culture-is]

aro culture is i lost a friend I've known for decades because his romantic partner demanded that i, along with many other platonic friends, should gtfo his life. I know this isn't an aros only thing but I am aro and i never thought that this shitshow would happen to me too. So it's only a matter of time before i get yeeted out of all of my friend's lives because for some reason the romantic partner is of higher importance than the platonic companions. God.

... so like. I just want to be clear: when a romantic partner insists that their partner should not have friends (whether along gender lines or not), that is either explicitly an act of abuse (isolating them from other social structures) or at minimum a red flag of emotional immaturity (ie, jealousy) that will often become a component of abuse. it is not a normal thing. it is, at times, normalized by a culture that expects unhealthy relationships, but it is a blaring red siren for problems.

there is a huge difference between the friend themself choosing to leave you and their partner demanding control over their social circle. it doesn't make being thrown to the curb hurt less, but I do highly recommend leaving the door open for him, and in some way explicitly saying he can always still talk to you, even if you are upset with him. generally, at this point, it's not worthwhile to say "I think that this person is abusing you", because the control is being initiated and is actively monitored at this stage; you saying anything bad is going to be used as why he should cut you off, because "I can't believe you'd be friends with someone who hates your romantic partner!" is a thing.

If you can, please please read up about how to help friends in emotionally abusive relationships. the main point is: be open to listening, never initiate a negative comment about the abusive individual, but if he starts it? Listen. Say how you can see that, how does he feel about it? Does he want to do anything about it? If not, you gotta learn to say "Okay. Let me know if that ever changes." and move on. If he's not ready, it's way more important that he's still able to come to you and doesn't feel pressured, because then when he is ready, he knows who has never pressured him, always listened and let him make his own choices, and offered to help.

[oasisr]

When men neg you by putting down your talents, run. Things will not get better.

Even if you aren't good at something and are just a beginner, he should not be mocking you or bullying you for that.

I'm not a great singer or painter, but I enjoy singing and painting sometimes. My ex would mock me and tell me that he wanted to marry someone who could actually sing.

I gave him another chance after he hurt my feelings. He was good for a couple of weeks, and then went right back to mocking me and putting me down.

Just run. You are beautiful even if you aren't good at everything you try. You don't need someone to put you down and try to harm your self-worth.

You are worthy of someone who will treat you like you are a special and beautiful woman. Because you are.

[unsolicitedadvicecatlady]

Negotiating with a terrorist

Some time ago I was involved in a hostage negotiation. The negotiation lasted 218 days before we reached a successful outcome. That was one of the hardest 7 months of my life. I got a lot of grey hairs, and I learned a little about human behavior. Now that there's been some distance between those events and the present, I'd like to share some of what I learned.

Growing up, I remember hearing "we don't negotiate with terrorists." Unfortunately, it's something I had to learn how to do. I'm not an expert, by far. There are people out there with a lot more experience in these types of high-stakes negotiations, however, this is some of the information that I used to get to an acceptable resolution, and this blog is an outlet that I use to share my unsolicited advice.

First, you have to stop thinking "it's us vs. them." You have to change your mindset into thinking about this as a collaborative effort. They're not the enemy, they are your counterpart. You're spinning in different directions, but you still need to work together with them here.

Next, take your best guess at your counterpart's perspective. Are they spouting a bunch of bullshit about how they're the real victim here? How life owes them? How somebody owes them? Get into their shoes to get into their head. It's not that you're buying their rhetoric, but you want them to think that you're looking out for their best interests, otherwise, they're not going to listen to a word you have to say.

Build rapport with them. Repeat back to them the last few words of what they just said, using an upwards inflection to indicate benign curiosity, or a downwards inflection to indicate they can elaborate because they haven't sold you on this idea, yet. The "yet" is the operative word. Give them the sense that you're really listening to understand, not to respond.

Use phrases like: "it sounds like," "it looks like," "it feels like," and reassure them that you are listening to what they're saying. For example, "it sounds like you're pretty tired of not being heard. Tell me, what's really going on?" or "it looks like you want to be taken seriously here. You've got my attention." or "it feels like you're in a really tough spot here. What do you need right now?"

You're not saying this because you're such a nice person, you are, but you're talking to a sociopath, you've gotta do a little acting. A lot of acting. You want to use your friendly, upbeat voice, like you're talking to a good buddy. That slows their brainwaves down and makes them feel safe. If you want to speed their brainwaves up and knock them off balance, talk fast and aggressively. If you want them to cool back off then use a slow cadence, deep tone, nice and easy, real slow.

Express a real interest in their point of view. Get them talking about all the absolute trash propaganda and their own narrative. Ramp up their sense of safety by respectfully acknowledging their emotions behind what they're saying. Paraphrase a little, let them know you're really here to listen to them. If they're holding back, prime them by guessing at what they're thinking and feeling. Learn to see suffering first.

Agree with them as much as you can. This might sound counterintuitive, but you've got to make them feel like you're really looking out for their best interests, so when they say something that you can agree with, focus on that.

Understand the difference between "You're right" and "That's right." "You're right" means "Shut up, please; I'm going to do what I like anyway." While "That's right" means "I now know that you understand where I'm coming from, and I agree with what you're saying."

Ask "no" oriented questions. People are more comfortable answering a question with "no" than they are with "yes." So, rephrase all of your questions that you want a "yes" to so that the answer you want is "no."

Let your own "no" out gently and only in teaspoonfuls. They're operating with a very self-centered mindset, so when you tell them "No" it's going to be like a slap in the face to them. Instead, ask "How am I supposed to do that?" They might tell you exactly how you're supposed to do that. So, say something like "It sounds like you've really thought this through. I'm sorry. I'm afraid that's just not going to be possible from my end." Compliment their intelligence and be apologetic. This person is an egomaniac, they'll eat that garbage for breakfast.

Get them to a point of cognitive overload by asking a rapid series of "how" and "what" questions. Any more than five and they'll be mentally exhausted. This can cause agitation, so be tactful of when you use this.

When negotiating you can't be so set on what you want that you wouldn't take something even better. Don't fixate on one outcome. Be open to the possibility that your best idea isn't actually the best idea.

One of your crucial objectives here is mutual respect. Don't dis the narcissist. Things will escalate if you start speaking disrespectfully. Use deference, tact, a calm approach, empathy (not sympathy), and let them know you respect them (especially if you hate their guts). Immediately apologize if you've said or done anything to offend them. Remember you're dealing with a totally self-absorbed human here.

Another thing to remember is you must be genuinely respectful. If you're faking it, they will be able to tell instantly. Don't be patronizing or condescending. It's very likely that they have been faking good intentions longer than you have, and they're most likely skilled in manipulation. So, don't even try to sound genuine, actually be genuine. You don't agree with them, you don't like them, but you do respect them.

Another critical objective here is finding a long-term mutually agreeable solution. You can always just shoot them once you get what you need, but don't focus on the short-term. Leave them looking forward to talking with you again. And then you can shoot them.

When you're in a good mood you're more likely to notice important details and make good decisions. The reverse of that is when you're in a bad mood you're more likely to miss important details and make bad decisions. So, do your damnedest to stay in a positive state of mind. Eliminate distractions, walk as much as you can (even just a 20-minute walk can clear your head and help your cognitive processing), eat well, sleep well, keep up with your hygiene and self-care, find the time to unwind and relax when you can. You can't afford to slip up on account of low blood sugar.

When you do get them to commit to something, make them spell out all the details. Ask questions. Lots of questions. Get precise answers, nothing ambiguous is going to go through. When they can visualize the outcome with you down to the smallest details, that is a very strong indicator that they really mean business here.

All of this takes practice. If you get in enough practice with negotiating in safe, low-stakes scenarios, like talking to your partner about dinner plans, or negotiating with a toddler about naptime, this will just start coming naturally to you.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of tools and tactics. I'm probably still traumatized by some of it and have forgotten a lot. I just felt like posting what I could recall while I still have some grey cells speaking to each other.

If you find yourself in a situation where you need to negotiate with a terrorist, a narcissist, a sociopath, or just a self-centered asshole, do yourself a service and research, research, research! Read every book you can get your hands on, watch every YouTube video and listen to every podcast on high conflict/high stakes conversations and negotiations, learn about psychology, biopsychosocial rhythms, read every blog, website, white paper, magazine article, and stone tablet you can find about human behavior. Exhaust every avenue and arm yourself to the teeth with knowledge.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Part II is now available.

[problemswithbooks]

On Stella (Helluva Boss)

The fandom fights a lot over Stella and how she's written. Fans who like the way she is presented say it's fine that she's a one-dimensional 'evil queen' trope. It's not bad writing that she's so shallow and one note--some villains are better that way.

That isn't an inherently wrong statement. Some of the most fun villains are shallow, evil, for evil's sake types. Unfortunately, I don't think Stella works as this type of villain for a multitude of reasons.

Reason 1: Stella's 'evil' trait is at odds with the themes of the show.

Stella's primary evil trait is that she's cruel to Stolas simply because she likes being cruel to him. She's abusive and hates him. That, by itself isn't the problem. The problem is that the story isn't about Stolas being in an abusive relationship--it's primarily about two people from two different classes, and how they have to become better people and change in order to have the loving relationship they both want.

Yes, Stolas being in a past abusive relationship could be a hurtle to his growth as a character and him being in a relationship with Blitz, but the show never goes there even when it could. Stolas is not shown as being triggered by Blitz's yelling at him. In Apology Tour he has no issues fighting back and telling Blitz off, ordering him to leave. Blitz's yelling and more aggressive attitude isn't what leads to their misunderstandings, where Blitz accidentally hurts Stolas by reminding him of Stella's abuse.

Instead, Stella's abuse isn't even touched on in any major way, and does nothing to move the plot forward or cause connected drama between the two leads. Yes, she hires Striker to kill Stolas and that does at times cause problems, but she didn't need to be abusive inorder to explain why she'd want Stolas dead. In a world where assassins and murder is around every corner, it'd make just as much sense for Stella to hire Striker because Stolas cheated, and it made her a laughingstock among her high class friends.

I'd even argue her abuse makes the story make less sense. We know, from Stolas's own admission, that once his daughter was born, their marriage wasn't necessary. He claims he stayed to give Octavia a normal life, but if Stella is as volatile as she's shown, why would he think Via being around her was a good idea? If Stella had been less outwardly antagonistic and instead more cold and standoffish, with the both of them having mostly separate lives, intersected by polite, if strained family interactions when around Via, then him staying would make sense.

One of the reasons I think more people wanted Stella to be a caring mother to Octavia was because it explains why her and Stolas were still married despite her constant abuse towards him. If Stella cared about Via, and they were close, Stolas would be not only reluctant to leave but to let their false pretense of 'happy couple' slip in front of Via, since both would hurt her. It also would make Octavia's choice to stay with Stella and her anger at Stolas hold more weight, and give Via more complicated emotions. She'd really love her mom, but be confronted with the fact she hurt her father, who she also loves. As it is, it's pretty clear to see that as soon as Octavia finds out Stella is pure evil, she'll easily go back to Stolas with very little if any internal conflict.

Reason 2: Vivziepop claims she's not a one-dimensional character.

A really huge issue with Stella being presented as a one note bitch, is because the creator herself claims she's not. In an interview, Vivzie says Stella is like Beatrice Horseman from BoJack Horseman, saying that at some point we will see things from her perspective.

The problem with this is that Stella has already been portrayed too negatively and flat for this to work. Beatrice worked because, while yes she was awful to Bojkack, she also had Alzheimer's which gained her some sympathy points, as did the way Hollyhock cared for her. She also wasn't always over the top horrible to Bojack, being more passive-aggressive and neglectful.

On top of that, despite her abuse toward BoJack, particularly when he was growing up, she wasn't framed as the reason for all of BoJack's issues. He was still responsible for his own shitty actions as an adult, and when he retaliated toward her, like tossing the baby doll off the balcony, it was framed as shitty behavior. More than anything, their interactions said more about BoJack than Beatrice. Him trying to hurt her, by throwing away her baby doll or putting her in the shittiest nursing home he could find was to show how BoJack wishes he could retaliate against his mother for all the things she did to him, but it leaves him feeling hollow because he knows that due to her disease she's not aware of who he is. It's meaningless, doesn't help him get any closure.

Stella is not presented as anything other than over the top abusive in every scene she's in. Nothing in the show suggests she's anything besides violent, even going so far as having her choking dogs in a childhood picture. Nor is Stolas's treatment of her supposed to reflect on him or characterize him. The only time it might is when he ignores Via because he's too caught up fighting with on the phone, but again, it's not given much focus and he doesn't reflect on it. The same goes for the cheating--yes, Stella was abusive and he doesn't necessarily owe her anything, but Stolas refuses to acknowledge that what he did clearly upset Stella, both times he talks about it asserting that he knows he didn't hurt her. No, they weren't in love, but cheating is still degrading, and Stella is obviously upset. Frankly, I think it would have made more sense for Stolas to rub that fact in her face--he has no issue insulting her, as we see later in that conversation. Instead, his continued assurance that he didn't hurt her or do anything wrong feels like the writers talking through the character, afraid watchers will judge Stolas to harshly otherwise.

Stella getting the Beatrice treatment will likely fail because there is nothing to soften the audience toward her even a little. She has been presented as Stolas's tormentor and nothing else. There are flashes of possible sympathy for her when she interacts with her brother, but for the most part they're framed as Andre being right and Stella being stupid, rather than Stella possibly being manipulated and used by her brother.

It also will fall flat because unless her background is another showcase of how even the upper class are hurt by the system, and this leads to something either story or character wise for the main cast, then there is no point to bring it up. The point of Beatrice's story was to show how generational trauma seeps down into the next generation. BoJack doesn't even have to know about it for it to reflect on his character and explain why he is the way he is. He and his mother parallel each other, where they start out as innocent children but through their parents mistakes, they grow up into cynical, bitter adults who both feel as if they've wasted their lives.

Reason 3: To many villains.

Stella has taken a backseat in her own villain story to her brother, who, just like Stella, is simply evil (he's even characterized as a catty bitch, just like she is, except less of a yeller). It's true Andre wants power, whereas Stella wants...well nothing really, just Stolas dead I guess, but for the most part they are nearly the same. Andre is just a better written version of Stella since he actually gets to make plans and have an end goal.

Once Andre gets introduced, Stella is redundant because she offers nothing different and in fact offers less to the story overall. If Stella was going to be a flat, evil for evil’s sake villain, she and Andre should have been combined. It would have made far more sense to have Stella be a bit smarter and be the one plotting to get Stolas's power. It also would have made the court scenes more impactful because Stella would be a character that was established far earlier, and who we know is a major threat to Stolas, since she's the one that hired Striker to torture and kill him.

If Andre was going to be the main big bad for Stolas, then Stella needed to offer something different. Generally the underling under the main villain is more sympathetic, and less evil, as a way to showcase how much worse the main bad guy is. Or they're more charismatic and show up far more than the main bad guy, like Azula and Ozai. As it is, Stella is neither. She shows up just as little as her brother, and does far less.

And, while Vivzie is a woman herself, I do find the handling of Stella to have mysoginistic undertones, mainly that since her brother has shown up, she is constantly shown as stupid, and that her only good quality is her looks--things her brother constantly brings up, but are not framed as shitty on his part. Them being essentually the same charater make this look all the worse, since Andre, as I've said, didn't need to be a charater at all, and Stella could have been the main villain instead. To pretty much sideline a female charater in order to introduce a male charater that fills the same roll is not the best. Just like racisuim, sexisuim doesn't have to be done purposfly, and I don't blame anyone who finds this choice to be sexist.

Then there's Striker.

Another reason I think Stella and Andre should have been combined. Striker worked really well as the side antagonist under the main villain. He's the one we see more of, he's more charismatic and has hints of a generally interesting backstory, one that we know would fit into the theme the show has of class issues. He's a mirror of what Blitz could have turned into, while Stella could be presented as Stolas's opposite. Even their work relationship could be a dark mirror of Blitz and Stolas's real love for one another.

As it is, Striker is under two other villains, one of which has become essentially unless to the story (Stella can't do anything Andre can't at this point, especially since her and Via aren't shown to have a close relationship). This reduces his threat level and reduced his screen time since he now has to share it with another character. We can see this in the newest episode, where we get a scene where Andre is talking to Stella and then Striker appears later at the trial with no explanation. If Andre and Stella were combined, that scene could have been Stella going over the plan with Striker instead. This would have helped Striker's character, since as it is, his appearance at the trial is confusing. Maybe he's just out for himself and his selfishness won out over his hate of Royals, maybe he was blackmailed, maybe he was so furious and his pride wounded so much by Blitz he'd do anything to bring him down, maybe it's a combination of all three. We don't know because we aren't given the set up. Is it cool that Striker was a suprise? Sure, but in this case it wasn't worth not showing the charater's reason for doing something that seems to go agasint his own charaterization.

Reson 4: Threat.

One of the main reasons to have a simply evil villain is so the can be incredibly menicing. The Aundence doesn't have to feel anything but fear for the protagonists and hate for the villain. They pose no deep moral question, and it feels great when they're beaten.

Despite being a major villain we never see her threat felt by the protagonists. Take her abuse of Stolas. We see her go to hit him and he catches her hand easily and tells her off without issue. Stolas has no problem standing up to Stella ever. In The entire show Stolas is never portayed as afraid of Stella.

Contrast this with how Moxxie and Crimson interact. Yes, sometimes Moxxie does stand up to his father, but we are shown how terrified he is of Crimson multiple times during the one episonde they interact. In comparison Stella's actions never make Stolas even worried. The most we see is him doging things when she throws things at him, but he doesn't seem genuinly afraid, and it's forgoten as soon as she leaves.

He insults her over the phine, insults her to her face. When he learns she hired Striker we arent shown him suddenly relize he underestimated her and become afraid. He instead he's more conserned with his reletionship with Blitz and getting him a crystal. Stolas never tells Blitz about Stella, so we don't even know how Blitz feels about how she treated him.

It's hard for a pure eveil villain to work when only one charater even seems to know they exist and they aren't even worried about offending them. The only way this could work is if Stella pretended to be nice most of the time, but was secretly ploting, like Scar in the Lion King. Instead she's framed as this force of nature, pure bitch, who torments Stolas, yet Stolas doesn't even show anxiaty when having to meet with her, something we know he's prone too because he shuts himself in the refrigerator when contemplating his confession to Blitz ending badly.

If the writers want Stella to be evil--make her evil. Let her be powerful and scary. Have Stolas fintch at her voice, show flashbacks of her hitting him, let her win arguments and verbally tear Stolas down. Make her smart enough to plan things on her own.

I think when alot of people say Stella is a badly written charater it's not nessesarily because they wanted her to be good, or complex. I don't see alot of people angry at how Mother Gothel was written (besides her deisgn being anti-semetic) or Maleficent. It's possible to write evil, one-dimensional female villains. The issue is that even as an evil bitch, Stella falls short in a mutitupe of ways. Her charater is a complete waste, even more so now that her brother has been introduced. She has no reason to exist and serves no narritive purpose. Even as a raod block to the Stolas/Blitz ship she isn't nessesaey because their main issue is the class systum. Stella could have been dead before the show started, leaving Stolas with Via for drama, and Andre could be the evil uncle trying to get Stolas's power.

Stella is pretty much a sexy lamp, execpt the sexy lamp is also a bitch. She's less affective then the random bitch charaters introduced in romatic webtoon comics that are only there to be mean to the main charater and try to steal her man. Stella's not badly written because she's pure evil and simple, she's badly written because she doesn't serve a purpose in the story and could be replaced with a sexy, evil lamp.

[richarlotte]

Important Advice?

Just because a man has higher education doesn’t mean that he should be idealized or romanticized. Doctors, lawyers, financiers, whatever; any man can be abusive or narcissistic, and men with more money and education have more resources with which to potentially harm you. If you don’t know a man, then you shouldn’t be putting him on a pedestal based on his career alone. 

[lyraeon]

A while back I learned something important from my therapist, and since I was trying to recount it anyway to share with a friend, I thought I would bring it to y'all as well.

We have all had at least one of those days where we've stayed up way too late doing something fun but we just don't want to stop doing it. Logically I figured that's just because "well yeah I don't want to stop, I have to go to sleep then to work and those suck compared to it."

Except then that starts happening often and you feel bad about always staying up every night, but then you feel worse and get more stressed because you know you're doing something you're "not supposed to", but because you're more stressed you want more fun time... endless cycle.

But as I was talking about it all and told her I thought I was self-sacrificing, the therapist had a very useful question for me:

"How do you normally know it's time to stop having fun? Like you know it's time to finish work because your shift's over, you know it's time to stop doing the dishes when they're all done or the washer's full, what is your signal to stop having fun?"

And I had to search for a while to answer.

"When the activity is done" - okay sure, but many games and books and series, or doing your own creative thing, "done" may take days upon days or even be non-existent.

"When I had to pass the controller" - obvious and easy one! If you knew you had a finite turn then the defined end is readily there, and you're also prepared for it! But requires pre-arranging the limits.

"When I got in trouble for it" - ding ding ding, we found the big problem.

When you grow up with "fun" being a forbidden activity you're only allowed to do after everything else is done to 100% perfection, then you learn to sneak it in where you can fit it. And you need that shit, seriously - you cannot get through life without some source of enjoyment, some tiny glimmer of joy among the tedium.

Many of us learned to read under the covers, or to play our gameboy in the bathroom and hide it under the sink, or that we could get away with running around the backyard for another 20 minutes if we just learned which intonation of "come inside" was the actual trouble line, or whatever other ways to cram in as much joy as we could before the hammer came down, for whatever severity that meant in your house.

And so that feeling of "I shouldn't be doing this, I'm going to get caught, but if I'm going to get in trouble anyway I might as well get as much out of this as I can" becomes part of what you expect to feel when you're having fun. And you only know how to stop having fun when you feel that way when you get in trouble for it - and in absence of anyone else controlling your behavior, that means the bad guy becomes either whatever task pops up to remind you responsibilities exist, or your significant other pointing out it's really late and they wish you'd come to bed, or your boss yelling at you for being tired all the time... or it becomes you.

If you don't learn that fun isn't a forbidden activity, if you stay stuck in the mindset that it's something you have to cram in in secret and hide that you're even doing? It becomes so so easy to hate the voice of reason in your head that's trying to encourage moderation and we're going to regret this tomorrow.

And that escalates. You keep being too tired the next day. You keep feeling even worse when you sit down to enjoy yourself the next night because now you're already tired, so stress gets to you faster, and now you feel guilty about how late you're staying up so you're not really enjoying playing your game or scrolling Tumblr or whatever anymore, you're just nervously glancing at the clock, "have I spent too long yet? How much longer can I do this before I get in trouble?"

Even though now you're in your 20s or 30s and it's been a decade since the last time anyone else told you it was bed time.

Learning that you're allowed to have fun isn't easy; guilt and shame are emotions that run very, very deep. And neither is learning to have a healthier relationship with saying "okay, that's enough for today".

For one, you have to stop threatening yourself. "Tomorrow is gonna suck" and "You're going to regret this" and "we're going to get in trouble at work" don't work. You already feel bad, you already know it's gonna suck, so why wouldn't you try to cram in one more hour now while it's not the day that's going to suck yet? Punishment is not incentive.

Because by now you're in a situation where sleep is a horrifying punishment that ends any fun, but you're not enjoying your fun anyway because you're tired all the time on top of feeling ashamed for doing something fun, and you're spending the entire time beating yourself up for being an idiot with no self control who can't even handle going to bed on time like a normal human being...

etc etc etc.

You will hear a lot of people give advice on how to get rid of the idea of having to "earn" sleep or fun or happiness by doing "enough" other things. To learn to accept that just being alive is enough reason to "deserve" to do those things. That will work for some people, but for others it just ends up one more thing to scold yourself about, especially when you're already in the habit not of denying yourself entirely but instead of doing it and feeling guilty the whole time.

But learning to set limits ahead of time, so that you're not anticipating some unknown time that a nebulous authority figure is going to finally have their horror monster timer run out and leap out at you but instead know when and what to expect? Holy shit it helped.

Don't get me wrong, it hella felt like depriving myself at first, like I was being grounded, and I looked at my phone beeping saying it was bedtime quite often and got annoyed.

But then I stopped treating fun as something that had to wait until the end of the day and everything else had to be done first. It is way easier to stare down sleep and go "I don't need you", especially if you have any kind of insomnia making the idea of being in bed a dreadful one on top of it. It is harder to say that about dinner, or calling a friend, or walking the dog. Plus then the day isn't over yet, so giving up on your fun isn't also accepting that as the defining moment of the end of your day!

So you have to start practicing looking for places to squeeze in a little more fun - "I've got an hour before dinner, that's perfect to make some tea and watch two episodes." "My favorite youtuber just put up a new video, why don't I take a break to watch it before I finish this homework?" "I need to go grocery shopping tomorrow anyway, and if I leave an hour early I could go kick around the bookstore first."

And once you do, fun starts to feel less shameful.

Don't get me wrong, if your issues run deep enough it still does sometimes. But when you get to have these moments of joy that you don't feel the need to hide or apologize for and where punishment isn't part of the routine, then fun stops feeling like something you have to dig your claws into for fear of having it taken away from you once someone catches you with it. And that means that finishing a level and glancing over at the clock is something you do because it actually managed to click a satisfaction switch in your head and you wondered if it was a good note to end on for now, instead of something you do with your breath held and the berating words already cycling in your mind.

I am not offering this advice expecting it to work for everyone or be easy or anything like that. I am someone with Depression, ADHD, and pretty severe PTSD sharing a technique that one therapist told me that really happened to click for and help me specifically, in case it might help someone else be a little nicer to themselves today, too.

[talistheintrovert]

NEW VIDEO IS POSTED!

It's not my most lighthearted venture, but it IS incredibly important to talk about.

It's hard to see the signs, especially when you're stuck inside it, but the first step to getting out is knowing what you're going through and that you deserve better. 💜💜💜

[imbecominggayer]

Writing Traumatic Backstories

Hello,it's me again! Sorry for dissappearing, I wanted a short little break from Tumblr. Obviously, I should have clearly communicated that fact instead of just going cold turkey!

From @differentnighttale : "How do I write characters who deal with severe trauma and pain with sensitivity and understanding"

Obviously with our topic today, there is going to be mentions of traumatic events and such. I won't go into any graphic or specific details but I just wanted to make it clear with a trigger warning

Since this lovely asker is specifically asking about sensitivity, I won't be addressing other related concerns about writing trauma but just focusing on this clear sensitivity! GET READY CAUSE THIS IS LONG!

Step One: Specificity Is Everything

You need to understand that various different traumatic instances will have their own different reactions based around various different incidents depending on what exactly happened and how many times it happened.

In general, the more times something happened, the more likely it would be leave an imprint. Obviously this is an oversimplification for the sake of an explanation :)

For abuse situations and other person vs person situations:

Consider the relationship your character has with this abuser! Is it obsessive? Neglectful? Don't just say it was a bad relationship! Describe to yourself what behavior and attitude specifically made this an unhealthy situation.

Did the abuser use any repetitive imagery? Did they use a specific tool most often? Did the abuse center on something specific? This can help guide you towards what can "trigger" this character!

What are the long-term affects this abusive situation have on this character? Did it make them question and distrust their self-worth, their safety, their identity, their body, their stability? Anything?

Was this abuser always bad? I don't mean in the "good person gone bad" route! I mean "is this character always abusive"? Most abusers aren't horrible 24/7 and can have their better sweeter moments. This often leaves their victims confused since the victims know more then anyone that this person wasn't just plain evil.

For natural disasters and accidents:

Where is the blame? Is it nature herself? Themself for not being careful enough? A real legitimate person who genuinely caused this accident? An imaginary individual that had no relationship?

What is the specific fear that this situation ignites? Is it this crushing feeling of isolation as they were suffering with no expectation of help? Is it the realization that life is out of their control which keeps them awake at night? Is it the chaos of that day? The fear of regret? The fear of death?

Answering these questions can often illuminate different ways to approach a character's traumatic backstory in unique and interesting ways. It also highlights potential coping mechanisms for your character.

Step Two: What Exactly Is Trauma's Effect On The Brain?

Remember: The following analogy is an oversimplified explanation of trauma. Afterward, the science explain-y part will come in :)

Imagine that the brain is an archive system. It gathers memories and puts away those memories under certain files. Then, the traumatic event(s) happen. Suddenly, the brain is unable to properly understand this. This causes the boss prefrontal cortex turns off. Now, the assistant is forced to take over. This assistant doesn't know what to do so they just do what they always do! Unfortunately, this fails to pacify the threat. And now the brain is mixing up all of the trauma's documents in an effort to just shove it into a filing cabinet. It doesn't work. Now everything new that arrives in needs to try and work through the trauma documents which are taking up the place!

SCIENCE PART!

During traumatic events, the "fear circuity" is activated. This causes the prefrontal cortex or the "decision-maker" to function less effectively. This causes a person goes into auto-pilot mode where they follow social habits.

This is why a person in a traumatic situation will sometimes engage in polite behavior with their abuser in an effort to "save face" as they typically do in social situations!

These events often physically mpact the brain! Specifically, in relation to learning and survival!

Advice In Order To Avoid Common Tropes:

Trauma is a highly complicated subject that is highly individualized and messy. But here are some "no fly" lists which often lead to traumatized characters appearing inauthentic and real traumatized people insulted.

Don't solve trauma in one conversation or one event. Working through trauma is ultimately about "moving on" in the sense of constantly moving forward but not leaving the trauma behind.

Don't romanticize certain coping mechanism. Oftentimes, media will have a hypersexual girl who learned to be hypersexual for trauma reasons. But this character doesn't exist so we can understand them. They exist for sexual appeal and tragedy brownie points.

Only include traumatic events if you can handle exploring them. If you aren't willing to deal with the implications of a certain backstory or serious mid-story event, don't write it in there.

Don't make it entirely resolved by the end. Recovery isn't about learning to "get rid" of the affect trauma has on someone. It's about working with those issues so you can learn to not drown in your issues.

Don't make the journey linear. Have your character relapse into bad unhealthy behavior. Make them have to struggle to relearn the same lessons again and again. It'll make the journey far more interesting and realistic.

Don't make bad coping mechanism black and white. Bad coping mechanisms were necessary once upon a time. They are good tools that have lived past their usefulness but they aren't illogical or evil.

Don't excuse bad behavior. Traumatic backstories offer an explanation of a character's behaviors but it doesn't make a character's actions okay.

They aren't just traumatic backstory. Oftentimes, they only thing we ever learn about a character is their deep issues and facade. But real traumatized people aren't just defined by the bad things that happen to them. They had dreams, goals, and friends that aren't pure tragedy.

They are people. While people are definitely defined by their trauma, don't make them think only of their trauma. People with sad backstories aren't more special then people who don't. They have stupidly weird behaviors, they have hobbies that aren't related to their issues. Don't make them think of just the bad stuff.

[uncanny-tranny]

When I was a kid, I have a distinct memory of borrowing a laundry basket from my parents, and putting it back when I was done. Now, I hadn't put it back exactly where I saw it, and do you know the "punishment" I received? My entire room was completely trashed multiple times.

As an adult, I realize that the parent who did this wanted to teach me a lesson about respecting people's spaces enough to put things back in its proper place. I realize that it was supposed to be a kind of "eye for an eye" type of punishment, but that's not what I remember learning.

I remember learning as a kid, though: Never rely on other people for help, they will enact revenge on you. Don't go to other people. They will fucking hate you for it, they don't care about you enough, and the punishment you receive will be payment.

And in many ways, I still see this type of parenting being practiced. You aren't going to teach your kids jack shit by doing this. Kids' brains are typically not going to connect the dots the way yours is doing. A kid isn't going to have a grand sense of consequence because to them, they did a thing and then their parent fucking lost their mind.

What do you do instead? Preferably, you seek to communicate with them, show them the behaviour you want from them, and don't resort to corporal "punishment" or humiliation.