#but then characterize a young adult; but still; adult; as a helpless child when it came to succession disputes. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

casually-inlove · 5 years ago

Text

19 Days Character Archetypes. He Tian

This idea had been dancing around the back of my mind for a little over half a year now. I wanted to compare and contrast 19 Days characters with the list of archetypes proposed in the neo-Jungian research and finally, I got some time to spare. For this post, I am going to talk about He Tian. Before I begin, however, let me clarify a few things. Since the subject is fairly complex, I do not intend to write in detail about the theory itself or the studies mentioned because that is not the purpose of this post. I am only looking to give a quick and basic run-down of the common archetypes shared by the 19 Days characters.

What is an archetype? An archetype is a set of predefined characteristics, a mould. Carl Jung described the archetype as a “fundamental unit of a human mind” or a “primordial image”. Simply put, the archetypes are the recurring and simplified patterns — but also symbols. According to his ideas, these basic symbols exist universally irrespective of epochs, nations, cultures, races, places, etc. Jung believed them to be shared by the so-called collective unconsciousness. However, even before him, the philosophers of old introduced the ideas of pre-existing ideal immaterial forms which shape the material reality. Since the archetypes are fundamentally primordial, they permeate every single sphere of human life. Art, media, movies, day to day interactions — all of them deal in archetypes.

While working on his research, Carl Jung defined the driving impulses of the human psyche. In turn, that data helped him come up with underlying basis for human behaviour. Based on his findings, Jung outlined the so-called primary archetypes. Later his research served as a basis for many other studies and classifications, particularly for The 12 Archetype Model, proposed by Margaret Mark and Carol Pearson in “The Hero and the Outlaw”. Naturally, there can be an infinite number of archetypes, each having their subtleties; still, the short lists give the generalized picture. Deconstructing characters to these basic blueprints is a fair game because a character, no matter how complex, is still an abstract entity.

For this series of posts, I am going to rely on the 12 Archetype Model mentioned above. The list goes as follows:

1. The Innocent

2. The Orphan

3. The Hero

4. The Caregiver

5. The Explorer

6. The Rebel

7. The Lover

8. The Creator

9. The Jester

10. The Sage

11. The Magician

12. The Ruler

Having examined this list, I am led to believe that He Tian primarily represents a mixture of The Hero and The Rebel archetypes.

The Hero and The Rebel

Let us start with the most obvious, the Hero. This archetype is closely associated with the ideas of masculinity, and thus it is also referred as the Warrior, the Crusader, etc.

The Hero archetype characteristics

Motto: Where there is a will, there is a way

Core desire: to prove one's worth through courageous acts

Goal: expert mastery in a way that improves the world

Greatest fear: weakness, vulnerability, being a “chicken”

Strategy: to be as strong and competent as possible

Weakness: arrogance, always needing another battle to fight

Talent: competence and courage

These go very much in line with what we know of He Tian. His childhood flashbacks suggest that he indeed intends to be “the strongest”.

The failure to protect the puppy, the harsh words of He Cheng — all of it led him to become fixated on becoming the Hero, the one who swoops down and single-handedly saves the day. It is in the way he stands in to fight She Li for Guanshan or rushes to prevent Jian Yi from getting kidnapped. It is in the way he attempts to resolve the other boy’s problems with debt collectors. It is in the way he deflects the coke can and decides to meet his father for Guanshan's sake.

He Tian yearns to be the strongest because the alternative — being weak and helpless — has already scarred him in the past. Whatever joy he used to have as a child was taken from him, because he was not strong enough to handle things on his own. He entrusted the puppy to his brother and the man betrayed him — or so He Tian was led to believe.

More than that, he wants Guanshan to come to him, whether it’s talking about his complicated past or whether it’s about learning the guitar.

It goes without saying that He Tian is almost eerily good at anything he does — as such he believes he can learn music from scratch in a short time. That speaks volumes about the confidence he has in his capabilities, and yet to an outsider's perspective this might come off as blatant posturing.

Apart from almost baffling self-confidence that he shows, He Tian is also known for his nearly abnormal physical prowess. He managed to hold his ground against several armed adults (which is probably just flawed writing) and way back he even managed to impress Guanshan by effortlessly hopping over the school fence, so it makes one wonder what kind of training he had undergone.

However, the truth is, The Hero is also susceptible to weakness. In his work, Carl Jung has coined the term “The Shadow”, which became a stand-alone archetype in his list. The Shadow stands for our suppressed, ignored or denied traits, in other words, it is everything that we cannot see or refuse to see in ourselves. The concept of this hidden darkness has been since absorbed into a number posterior studies, such as Robert Moore’s and Douglass Gillette’s “King Magician Warrior Lover”, where they introduce triadic paradigms of the archetypes and their corresponding active and passive shadows. Notably, they link the aforementioned archetypes with the concept of “masculinity” and its development throughout adolescence into adulthood.

What is The Shadow to The Hero archetype? When The Hero cannot fulfill their purpose, they surrender to the shadow. The dark side takes their best qualities and transforms them into flaws. The confidence thus turns into arrogance and hubris, courage into foolhardiness, competence into bravado and posturing — or the complete opposite happens. Courage transforms into cowardice, confidence into insecurity, etc.

Whereas He Tian is concerned, before he had developed an emotional attachment to another person (and by doing so gained something to cherish), we could observe some of the definitive shadow patterns in his behaviour. Until he recognized Guanshan as someone to know and to protect, he used to goad the other boy, if not outright assume the position of his superior, demanding obedience and subservience. He Tian also used the snide tone when talking to Guanshan, and he did so in order to establish his power to steer the boy in what he deemed to be the right direction — that is attempting to curb Redhead’s short temper and brashness. And in doing so, he was not shy of subtly threatening the boy or using physical force to make his point.

To be in touch with his masculinity — that is to channel his energy constructively in order to feel strong and needed, — he required to have someone he could play the knight for. Once he could direct his inner impulses properly, his violent tendencies have subsided.

Even so, in his aspiration to be the ultimate good — driven by the hatred for his family background, perhaps — He Tian often opted for doing rash, foolhardy stuff, such as attempting to take on the debt collectors all by himself, for instance. Sure, he would have gotten to “save the day” and be the hero, but that single moment would have cost him his life.

Now, having glanced at the Hero archetype, let us move to the next one, The Rebel. This archetype is characterized by the following:

The Rebel archetype characteristics

Motto: Rules are made to be broken

Core desire: revenge or revolution

Goal: to overturn what is not working

Greatest fear: to be powerless or ineffectual

Strategy: disrupt, destroy, or shock

Weakness: crossing over to the dark side, crime

Talent: outrageousness, radical freedom

The Rebel is also known as the outlaw, the revolutionary, the wild man, the misfit, or iconoclast.

Indeed, He Tian rebels quite a bit in the manhua. First and foremost, his rebellion is directed at his flesh and blood — Mr He and Cheng.

Not much is known about He Tian’s childhood, yet it is pretty clear that he hadn’t exactly had a happy one. His mother died early on and he was left to grow up practically without parents since Mr He is a textbook absentee father. From what He Tian knows, his brother backstabbed him, an act that keeps plaguing their relationship years after, while his father is labeled as a monster — someone who is ostensibly capable of eliminating people who disobey.

It is also clear as the day that young He Tian is traumatized by whatever dealings his family conducts behind the scenes. At some point, we even witnessed a scene where HT is tossed out of the burning yacht, while his brother is covered in blood and holds a gun. A violent experience such as this inevitably leaves a scar — and actually get to see it. He Tian is shown to experience something closely reminiscent of PTSD, recurring violent nightmares, the fear of the dark, etc.

Back in the present day, we see that He Tian wants to put distance between himself and his family. It manifests in living separately from his kin and cutting the contact to a bare minimum. He makes a point of stating that he is independent, severing the ties he deems to be dysfunctional. Yet the same time He Tian cannot quite let go of his familial bonds. In particular, whenever He Cheng is concerned, the boy sneers and flagrantly shows his impetuousness and disrespect.

In many ways he’s practically stomping his feet, attempting to show that he doesn’t need his brother, yet by doing this he proves the opposite: he still yearns his bitter feelings to be validated by He Cheng — and by his father too, to an extent.

This results in bratty behaviour on his part: He Tian orchestrates property damage at the He mansion, impishly rejects Cheng’s gestures of goodwill, etc.That is the work of the Rebel’s “shadow” counterpart — when the desire to overturn things and break free takes on darker shade and slips into dangerous territory. Resisting and opposing then becomes a way of life, and only through it does the “shadow rebel” feel certain of their self.

He Tian pushes at the boundaries of what is permitted and socially acceptable to feel in control of the situation. If we examine the way He Tian interacts with others, we will see that the shadow manifests in many other ways. He Tian is compelled to stir and instigate others, using his wit and cunning to make them uncomfortable or confused, and thus easy to manipulate to his amusement.

Speaking of socially acceptable behaviour, Chinese culture places a great emphasis on the respect towards senior family members — and I probably cannot stress this enough — He Cheng lets him get away with this lack of reverence. Deep inside He Tian seeks his brother’s approval and attention, but rejects it when he is given, and in the process he sets out to tear down anything that displeases him.

Establishing a connection with Guanshan let He Tian fulfill his Hero potential and channel his energy in constructive ways, and yet at the same time, it allowed him to tap further into his “Shadow” Rebel tendencies. That is, to it rub in into He Cheng’s face that he’s no longer welcome or needed.

Naturally, as a character, He Tian possesses traits of other archetypes — such as The Lover, for instance — albeit to a lesser extent, so I’m not going to dive deep in here. Let me just mention, that as a Lover, He Tian is compelled to increase his attractiveness to his love interest — we often see him fishing for compliments and validation on Guanshan’s part, which underscores his inner need to feel needed and wanted, yet also turns into clinginess at times.

With that, this quick rundown of He Tian’s character patterns is complete. All in all, you could say that He Tian is fairly archetypal at his core, and yet it’s the combination of these “trite” features that mark him as an utterly realistic and believable character. It is because we’ve seen these archetypes countless times before that He Tian appears to be true to life.

Lastly, this is going to turn into a series of posts, but right now I cannot say when the next part is going to be up since writing this took me some time. In the meantime, you can read a bit more below ✨.

A bit more about He Tian | Support me at Ko-Fi

#19 days #he tian #long post #finally published

392 notes · View notes

saltyyashahime · 4 years ago

Note

So that other anon csa survivor is glad that they " interpreted the relationship correctly". They are glad their trauma is so bad that they can't look at an adult and a child without seeing implications of romance/sexual relationship? That because of what happened to them, they are incapable of watching an adult caring for a child and see an innocent familiar bond and nothing else? Call me crazy but sounds like a weird thing to be glad about. *Jouheki-chan*

Ive said this already but we need to leave CSA survivors out of the conversation. How we cope is vast and Im not going to shit over thier coping mechanisms. I see us sharing our stories and that is okay. However we too are divided on this topic. Im not going to entertain bashing someone for their ship as a coping mechanism.

I will say they see Sessrin through rose coloured glasses. Sesshomaru is the perfect gentlemen. He never had a thought of Rin until one days he realized she was such w beautiful woman and he was in love with her. As doew Rin. It only magically turns romantic when shes older. Its all love, respect, Rins own choices and poor old Sesshomaru is just helpless and falls along with her.

This was in the shippers mind the way you get the platonic familial bond and the romantic one. It doesnt work like that. Canon sessrin does not work like that.

• He continued to visit and bring gifts. Gifts that are claimed as courting gifts

• the proposal cd which was satire is now used as accepted canon

•the retconning of her accepted age to make it seem like she might be older than the accepted 8 years old.

•how soon he married and knocked her up. If she bleeds she breeds much?

•the constant reminders that Rin is and was a child when they met

•the opening where its compared to Inukag. Its alluding when they fell in love. His holding her child body in his arms.

•her being a vulnerable young girl when they met with no family what so ever

•the constant child promotional content

•the fact that she is still a girl at that start of this.

•the fact that Rin has little characterization outside of being his wife and baby mom. Who is adult Rin?

•the og cast just being okay with it all when previous they gave miroku (and to a lesser extent koga) shit for it

•the tone deaf 13 year old episode

If Rin had been 18-20, just getting married to Sesshomaru, if the opening had been adult rin and sess in romantic situations, if all the promotional material had been for adult rin us antis still wouldnt like it. However I think we would have to reach for arguments on grooming. Instead sunrise handed up the information on a silver platter. They didnt want us to think about Rin as an adult. They kept showing us kid Rin. They kept saying its a mystery.

The only mystery is how anyone thought this was going to fly. Making sessrin canon was always going to cause issues. They just made it the worst way possible.

I expected Sessrin. I hoped it wasn’t but i expected it. I just didn’t expect how awfully blatant it was going to be about the grooming aspects. I thought they would gloss over it entirely, not gaslight us into accepting it.

Oh nooo shes older! Her age never stated..

#anti sessrin #anti rinsess

16 notes · View notes

ziracona · 4 years ago

Note

Sorry if this has been asked before but, I'm really curious about how you would have written Max in the story if he were to be there? He's one of my personal favorite characters and finding redemption stories about him is kinda hard (You have no idea how happy I was when I read Claudette threw him a scarf to stay warm, like yes please; he's a feral child in a killer's body, but please stay warm)

I don’t think I have been, and no problem!

If Max had had a larger role in ILM, I am not 100% sure how I’d have written his perosnality, since I haven’t had to do it yet in-depth, but I know he’d be very angry and both defensive and aggressive towards everything, warry, skittish, hostile. Not bad necessarily, but humans will raise hackles and be ready to lash out and bite if they’ve all they’ve ever known is abuse the same way a mistreated cat or dog would, or like, most any living thing. I think he’s very lonely and unloved, and it’s hard for humans to survive without positive contact and affirmation and physical affection. I mean, if we’re left alone totally, we literally just die. But since his only experience with humans—and his parents/the people who should have loved him most no less—was nothing but danger and abuse and isolation and imprisonment, I think it’d be very hard for him to be approached. Not at all impossible, but man, it is really, really hard to convince someone who’s been through torrential rains of abuse that there’s something else to be given.

I do have ideas on how you could get through, but let me think about personality first. Well, aside from aggressive, defensive, skittish, warry, and hostile, like inborn traits to go along with learned, I think he is a very volatile person. He must be enduring and strong to survive what he did and live, and so determined and tenacious. —Oh! Hang on, big one before I forget. So, I am not a forefront authority in Disability as it relates to narrative, but I know quite a bit and was lucky enough to have a professor whose central areas were Disability, Horror, and Disability in Horror. I don’t know who exactly popularized the idea of Max as having basically a child’s mind in an adult’s killer body, though I think I’ve been told it was one person or story? Maybe it was just a big fandom take. But that’s one of the most prevailing and harmful disability stereotypes, especially for mental disabilities, and horror is a massive offender in general with both disabilities and disorders, and we need to do better & listen to the communities themselves more. I don’t mean this in a harsh way at all—I don’t even know if you meant ‘feral child in a killer’s body’ that way, or meant like, ‘this feral man in a killer’s body is my child TuT’—which is a totally different statement—and even with the former, I know people have had that idea of Max super popularized and are inundated with it, and most people I think just don’t know it’s a very harmful and prevalent stereotype period—I didn’t until I was in my 20s. But I think it’s important to bring attention to it when it’s brought up. Many of the bad things done to people with disabilities come from treating them as not fully actualized humans (I guess I should say ‘us’), and some of those ways are easy to spot, because they’re cruel, and some are harder, because they seem positive. The ‘child mind in an adult body’ is a huge one for disabilities that doesn’t seem awful at first glance, but actually is a huge problem. Unfortunately, human children also get treated by and large as not fully realized humans (as in autonomous & worthy of respect and self-determination—obvs there are some differences that are important, but a child is still an entire ass human & should be respected as such). The painting a physically and mentally disabled character as childlike or mentally trapped as a child is used to control and take autonomy and gravity from our opinions and lives. It’s also just like, not accurate. But the biggest thing is that it takes agency from individuals and paints them as less intelligent, less capable of wanting or pursing more ‘adult’ things [such as jobs or sex or protesting for their rights or having informed opinions on current events and doing something about it], and tries to paint that permanent, life-long dehumanization as a positive thing by making it cute or innofenssive at first glance. While still discounting disabled as kids, passing off autonomy and decisions to their caregivers, and ignoring our status as equal and actualized individuals. Stunted learning or growth or different ways of speaking, moving, and limitations understanding certain things don’t actually make disabled people like children. They’re just adults who sometimes have some very different ways of speaking or thinking or seeming or being. But it’s super important that we’re still adults and like, have the actualized self of adults, even if our speech patterns seem weird. There’s a huge and extremely important difference between an adult with social hangups around sensitive areas and social norms, and being a child. If you didn’t know any of that, don’t feel too bad, again like, people who aren’t disabled almost never talk about disability theory or issues, and I didn’t know this till I was in my 20s. But I feel really bad for Max and bad about how he is usually characterized, so it is important to bring this up.

Okay! That all said, I think personality wise, Max would be really fun to write. Because you have two levels—you have the taught things—fear, aggression, etc, and his inborn perosnality. There is very little canon about Max, but we know he never left home after freeing himself, he steals clothes from scarecrows or whatever he can find, and he’s probably in his early 20s or maybe to his mid 20s now. Since he never left home, I’d think he’s probably a little more cautious and anctious by nature, even with all that rage. I think he’d be sentimental if he ever was given something to love. He must have attachment to things pretty easily, and would I think have liked people a lot because of that, if life had been different. Would have been a shy but friendly and hopeful farm boy. Now, he’s kind of a broken mess, sadly. He’s had it super pounded in by family he is worthless and horrific and disgusting and a monster and an abomination, so I think he expects all humans to take one look and violently feel the same towards him. Taught humans are cruel, and he isn’t safe with them, and the only thing that will stop them and protect himself is unchecked aggression.

So, when it comes to like, getting close enough to him to redeem him, it’s rough, because again, he’d be very very aggressive. I mean, even after killing his parents, he mutilated the animals on the farm in rage, and continued to viciously hurt and then kill anything living he could find on the farm, so he’s got a lot of danger, and he really leaned into violence to protect himself. It’s what he knows now. I think he’s still lonely — like, so lonely he’s sick with it — but unlike Anna and Michael, he’s never known love, so I don’t think he’s even aware of that, and it’s on a pretty subconscious level. Plus, he has even less understanding of human communication and rules and gestures than the other feral killers, so it’d be really hard to get through to him. I think about the only plausible way is really, really, really fuckin slowly, through repeated gifts and kindnesses for no reason (like Claude with the scarf but every day for three years)—the same way you’d try to get through to a feral cat, since like other living things, humans also are wary and mistrustful when hurt, but can be socialized into new situations and do have a pretty set list of gifts and actions we appreciate. I mean, if I was feral, I would start to soften if repeatedly left chocolates and big warm coats and picture books to look at, pretty rocks. I have a crow heart.... >.> Or, the much more likely option, you’d have to catch him or find him captured and helpless, and then be kind instead of doing anything bad at all, and help him for a somewhat extended period of time, nurse him back to health or such, so he’d be forced to actually realize this person isn’t trying to hurt him—they’re trying to help.

I think Max would get less hostile slowly and cautiously because like, if you’ve ever been horribly abused you know you’re afraid to be hurt again. But also, if you’re alone, there’s a battle between wanting some kind of constact and love, and the fear of trying to trust someone only to be brutally torn up again and cast aside. It’s a painful place to be. But I think once he made it over that initial trust hurdle, and could bring himself to stop shuddering at a touch and to believe the person helping him was just trying to give him food, not poison or something to choke on, he’d be absolutely overcome, becuase if you’ve never been shown kindness and then are, overwhelmingly, it’s really hard to process. There’s a lot of psychology stuff about how we form our understandings and processing of each other and the world that I’m not gonna go into much bc convoluted, but it’d be like the opposite weirdly of a Just World break. The realization some things are less awful than your cemented life understanding structure. It would feel wrong and be hard to process (and rewireing a brain takes some time), but he’s been so alone for so long, I think the longing for people would get through, and he would cautiously start to trust and be just bowled over and kind of intimidated by the strength of like, the love and affection and gratitude and belonging he’d start to feel. I think he’d be afraid, becuase it’s not how life is meant to go, and jumpy, but he’d also just be lost to the happiness of actually having some kind of positive human connection, and become fiercely protective of whoever (or whichever people) was/were helping him. Got something he doesn’t want to lose now.

He’s young, so he’s going to still be figuring stuff out, and he had an awful upbringing, so lots of confusion and anger and un-learning too, but I’m really glad you liked that scene!! 😭 and that you like Max too, because he needs more love. I like him a lot too, that’s why he ends up with an undetermined fate instead of, like, dead in ILM. I’d like to give him a fully story role sometime, when there’s more space for it. He’s such a complex and unfortunate guy, he deserves a chance to grow more right and find people who are different and have a better future. TuT. It ain’t fair how his life was.

#ask #anonymous #dead by daylight #the hillbilly #in living memory (fic)#in living memory #max thompson jr #sorry if this didn’t answer all you wanted it was getting so long I was starting to sweat nervously >.>#but hope you enjoy it & the mini introduction to disability theory stuff—it’s super fascinating you should check some of the writing out #sometime! especially since there’s so much history there with horror ahhh now I want to go read...academic writing? gross wtf is wrong with #me TuT I’ve become my own enemy I lived long enough to occasionally wish to read academic papers bleah #*bleah lol

14 notes · View notes

dissociatedabyss · 5 years ago

Text

Contributions of Attachment Trauma to Dissociation, Suicidality, and BPD

This past weekend at the ISSTD conference Dr. Lyons-Ruth presented on the topic of attachment trauma and its contributions to Borderline Personality Disorder features and suicidality in adolescence and adulthood.

I feel it may be well known by now that disorganized attachment is significantly related to adult dissociation even when controlling for child abuse. Dr. Lyons-Ruth presented information regarding maternal communication and its impact on infant attachment styles and regulation later in life, so I wanted to try to summarize some of the really interesting/important points. I’ll do my best to make it organized and easy to follow, but it isn’t my strong suit :’) (Also, i’m just using the citations that she listed. If you can’t find an article, feel free to reach out and I can try to find it and link it).

First, rodent studies have shown us that the caregiving environment during infancy plays a crucial role in dysregulation of the stress response system in adulthood. (Francis et al., Science, 1999; Champagne et al., Physiol & Beh, 2006; Weaver and Meany, 2000).

So, Are there developmental predictors in infancy of adult BPD traits and suicidality?

Yes!

1. Caregiver as the regulator of infant fear and distress

2. Teaching, basic care, & play- not necessarily attachment related

Both of these aspects play into the attachment style that the infant will develop with their caregiver. The attachment style can be assessed using the strange situation procedure, which if you’re not familiar with already just google it. In normative studies using this assessment, 85% of infants displayed an organized attachment style (secure, avoidant, ambivalent).

The other 15% displayed disorganized attachment which can be seen by the infant expressing dysphoric affect (depressed, fearful), conflict behaviors (freezing and stilling, slowed movements), disoriented behaviors (wandering, confused expressions), and odd, unexpected combinations of distress, avoidance and approach toward the caregiver. (Main & Solomon, 1990).

So the next question to ask is, is maternal caregiving behavior associated with infant disorganization?

Yes it is!

A measure known as “Maternal Disrupted Affective Communication” has been shown to have good validity in relation to infant disorganization. The five dimensions it assesses include:

1. Negative-intrusive behavior (mocks/teases infant)

2. Role confusion (draws attention to self when infant is in need)

3. Contradictory affective communication (talks in inviting voice but physically blocks infant’s access, e.g. holding a newspaper)

4. Disorientation (confused, frightened, odd affect with infant)

5. Withdrawal (interacts from distance, silent, walks around infant)

A study looked at which of these aspects best predicted BPD features and suicidality and found that Withdrawal was the only significant predictor, accounting for 18% of variance in the criterion. (Lyons-Ruth, Bronfman, & Parsons, 1999).

The “Withdrawing Profile” was described as:

A. Lack of parental initiative around attachment (doesn’t initiate greeting or comfort)

B. Delayed responding

C. Cursory responding (hot potato- pick up, put down right away)

D. Directs infant away from self to toys

E. Distanced interaction (from across the room)

F. Little or no hostility or intrusion

Early maternal withdrawal also significantly predicts:

-extent of borderline features (.48**)

-recurrent suicidality (.30*)

-substance abuse (.49**)

-conduct symptoms (.40*)

-eating disorders (.34*)

-antisocial personality disorder (.30*)

(Pechtel et al., Int. J. Cog. Ther., 2012;

Shi et al., Inf. Mental Health J., 2011;

Lyons-Ruth et al. Psychiat. Res., 2013;

Dutra et al., J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 2009;

Lyons-Ruth et al., Att. & HD, 2014).

With all of this in mind, we know that childhood abuse is also related to BPD and suicidality. Does late childhood abuse account for the effect of early maternal withdrawal on borderline features?

No!

These two factors have independent effects on the criterion, meaning even after we add child abuse to the model- maternal withdrawal is still a significant predictor of borderline features as well as suicidality (Lyons-Ruth, Bureau, Holmes, Easterbrooks, & Brooks, 2013).

So how do these effects show later in childhood?

Infant disorganization shows in school age children in three ways:

1. Controlling- caregiving (organizing, guiding, praising, entertaining parent)

2. Controlling- punitive (commanding, punishing, humiliating parent)

3. Behaviorally-disorganized (Odd, out-of-context behavior around parent)

Looking closer at the controlling behaviors-

Early maternal withdrawal was a significant predictor (.43**) of caregiving behavior towards parent at age 8.

Early overall disrupted communication was a significant predictor (.39*) of punitive and disoriented behavior towards parent at age 8.

(Cassidy & Marvin, 1991; Wartner et al., 1994; Main & Cassidy, 1988;

NICHD SECCYD, 2004; Bureau et al., 2009; O’Connor et al, 2012).

Now what does this caregiving behavior from a child look like?

1. Child carries burden of creating interaction

2. Child structures the interaction

3. Child diffuses parent’s hostility

4. Child follows into parent’s focus of attention rather than vice versa

5. Child may entertain with overbright affect

6. Child may encourage and praise parent

Overall, the parent abdicates their parental role.

The problem with this interaction style is that it impacts the child negatively, but is often seen by surrounding adults as a very mature child with no needed support or intervention.

Moving from adolescence to adulthood and looking at how disorganized attachment styles relate to borderline features in young adults...

In a study consisting of disturbed young adult-parent interactions, disorganized and caregiving behavior characterized the interactions of the young adults who had BPD traits and recurrent suicidality.

In addition, caregiving behavior was positively correlated with BPD traits and suicidality. (Lyons-Ruth et al., J. Pers. Dis., 2015)

But why does a caregiving response of disorganized attachment lead to these outcomes? Because...

"The child is prematurely drawn into attempts to regulate the parent’s emotions and behavior and suppress his own directions.”

-Suppression of Self-Expression: Child less able to develop initiative, autonomy, mastery behavior, peer relations.

-Unintegrated Experience: Child’s own experience remains unintegrated, with a resulting propensity to conflict and disorganization at times of stress.

-Guilt, Helplessness, and Rage: The premature burden of responsibility for monitoring and engaging the parent is very often associated with guilt, helplessness, and anger.

-No Effective Parental Regulation: The parent is abdicating a regulatory role and failing to provide the comfort, responsiveness, and scaffolding that helps the child to develop more mature forms of emotional regulation.

Now to get to adult dissociation...

Significant predictors of adult dissociation included:

-quality of early maternal care (.50**)

-verbal abuse (.26**)

(Dutra et al., 2009)

Aspects of Early Caregiving Contributing to Dissociation:

-Responsive interaction (-.34**) [For every increase in responsive interaction, risk for dissociation decreases]

-Emotional/Physical Withdrawal (.39**)

-Disrupted Maternal Communication (.49**)

A study by Byun, Brumariu, & Lyons-Ruth (J Traum Diss, 2016) showed that adult dissociation was positively correlated with both disoriented and caregiving interaction styles.

At 7 years old, maternal passive-withdrawal was a significant predictor of caregiving interaction at age 19.

At 7 years old, maternal lack of sensitivity, maternal passive-withdrawal, and maternal hostility were all significant predictors of disoriented interaction style at age 19. (Bureau, Easterbrooks, & Lyons-Ruth, Unpublished.)

To wrap things up..

-Disorganized attachment in infancy leads to caregiving, punitive, or disoriented interactions later on

-Disorganized attachment can be caused by disrupted maternal communication

-The strongest predictor of BPD traits and suicidality of the disrupted maternal communication assessment was maternal withdrawal

-Those who develop a disoriented or caregiving interaction style are more likely to experience dissociation, BPD traits, and recurrent suicidality

-Disrupted maternal communication is significantly related to dissociation, BPD, and suicidality even after controlling for child abuse

Hopefully this illustrates the pathways to adult dissociation, BPD, and suicidality through attachment trauma in a more detailed manner. I hope I did a good enough job explaining all of this, but if you have questions or suggestions just let me know! The rest of her presentation goes on to neuropsychology and how attachment trauma impacts the brain, so if you’d like to learn about that just let me know and I’ll make another post.

#personal #info #attachment trauma #borderline personality disorder #suicidality #childhood trauma #child abuse #complex trauma #lyons-ruth #isstd #trauma and dissociation #disorganized attachment #idk how else to tag this #dissociation #bpd

28 notes · View notes

multiverseforger · 4 years ago

Text

In his original appearance, Jason was scripted as a mentally disabled young boy.[91] Since Friday the 13th, Jason Voorhees has been depicted as a non-verbal, indestructible, machete-wielding mass murderer.[92][93] Jason is primarily portrayed as being completely silent throughout the film series. Exceptions to this include in part 3 when he grunts in pain several times when final girl Chris manages to stab him (once in the hand and once just above his knee), flashbacks of Jason as a child, a brief scene in Jason Takes Manhattan where the character cries out "Mommy, please don't let me drown!" in a child's voice before being submerged in toxic waste, and in Jason Goes To Hell where his spirit possesses other individuals.[55] Online magazine Salon's Andrew O'Hehir describes Jason as a "silent, expressionless...blank slate."[94] When discussing Jason psychologically, Sean S. Cunningham said, "...he doesn't have any personality. He's like a great white shark. You can't really defeat him. All you can hope for is to survive."[95] Since Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, Jason has been a "virtually indestructible" being. Tom McLoughlin, the film's director, felt it was silly that Jason had previously been just another guy in a mask, who would kill people left and right, but get "beaten up and knocked down by the heroine at the end". McLoughlin wanted Jason to be more of a "formidable, unstoppable monster".[23] In resurrecting Jason from the dead, McLoughlin also gave him the weakness of being rendered helpless if trapped beneath the waters of Crystal Lake; inspired by vampire lore, McLoughlin decided that Jason had in fact drowned as a child, and that returning him to his original resting place would immobilize him.[96] This weakness would be presented again in The New Blood, and the idea that Jason had drowned as a child was taken up by director Rob Hedden as a plot element in Jason Takes Manhattan.[55]

Many have given suggestions as Jason's motivation for killing. Ken Kirzinger refers to Jason as a "psychotic mama's boy gone horribly awry...very resilient. You can't kill him, but he feels pain, just not like everyone else."[97] Kirzinger goes on to say that Jason is a "psycho-savant", and believes his actions are based on pleasing his mother, and not anything personal.[79] Andrew O'Hehir has stated, "Coursing hormones act, of course, as smelling salts to prudish Jason, that ever-vigilant enforcer of William Bennett-style values."[94] Todd Farmer, writer for Jason X, wrote the scene where Jason wakes from cryonic hibernation just as two of the teenagers are having sex. Farmer liked the idea that sex acts triggered Jason back to life.[78] Whatever his motivations, Kane Hodder believes there is a limit to what he will do. According to Hodder, Jason might violently murder any person he comes across, but when Jason Takes Manhattan called for Hodder to kick the lead character's dog, Hodder refused, stating that, while Jason has no qualms against killing humans, he is not bad enough to hurt animals.[98] Another example from Jason Takes Manhattan, involves Jason being confronted by a street gang of young teenage boys one of whom threatens him with a knife, however Jason chooses not to kill them and instead scares them off by lifting up his mask and showing them his face. Likewise, director Tom McLoughlin chose not to have Jason harm any of the children he encounters in Jason Lives, stating that Jason would not kill a child, out of a sympathy for the plight of children generated by his own death as a child.[96]

In Jason Goes to Hell, director Adam Marcus decided to include a copy of the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, from the Evil Dead franchise, in the Voorhees home as a way to insinuate that Jason was actually a "Deadite", a type of demonic being from that series. Marcus stated the book's placement was intended to imply that Pamela Voorhees had used it to resurrect Jason after his childhood drowning, resulting in his supernatural abilities: "This is why Jason isn't Jason. He's Jason plus The Evil Dead... That, to me, is way more interesting as a mashup, and [Sam] Raimi loved it! It's not like I could tell New Line my plan to include The Evil Dead, because they don't own The Evil Dead. So it had to be an Easter egg, and I did focus on it. It absolutely is canon."[99] In an early draft of Freddy vs. Jason, it was decided that one of the villains needed a redeemable factor. Ronald D. Moore, co-writer of the first draft, explained that Jason was the easiest to make redeemable, because no one had previously ventured into the psychology surrounding the character. Moore saw the character as a "blank slate", and felt he was a character the audience could really root for.[100] Another draft, penned by Mark Protosevich, followed Moore's idea of Jason having a redeemable quality. In the draft, Jason protects a pregnant teenager named Rachel Daniels. Protosevich explained, "It gets into this whole idea of there being two kinds of monsters. Freddy is a figure of actual pure evil and Jason is more like a figure of vengeance who punishes people he feels do not deserve to live. Ultimately, the two of them clash and Jason becomes an honorable monster."[100] Writers Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, who wrote the final draft of the film, disagreed about making Jason a hero, although they drew comparisons between the fact that Freddy was a victimizer and Jason was a victim. They stated, "We did not want to make Jason any less scary. He's still a brutal killer ... We never wanted to put them in a situation where Jason is a hero ... They're both villains to be equally feared."[100] Brenna O'Brien, co-founder of Fridaythe13thfilms.com, saw the character as having sympathetic qualities. She stated, "[Jason] was a deformed child who almost drowned and then spent the rest of his childhood growing up alone in the woods. He saw his mother get murdered by a camp counselor in the first Friday the 13th, and so now he exacts his revenge on anyone who returns to Camp Crystal Lake. Teenage fans can identify with that sense of rejection and isolation, which you can't really get from other killers like Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers."[86]

As Jason went through some characterization changes in the 2009 film, Derek Mears likens him more to a combination of John Rambo, Tarzan, and the Abominable Snowman from Looney Tunes. To him, this Jason is similar to Rambo because he sets up the other characters to fall into his traps. Like Rambo, he is more calculated because he feels that he has been wronged and he is fighting back; he is meant to be more sympathetic in this film.[101] Fuller and Form contend that they did not want to make Jason too sympathetic to the audience. As Brad Fuller explains, "We do not want him to be sympathetic. Jason is not a comedic character, he is not sympathetic. He's a killing machine. Plain and simple."[102]

In 2005, California State University's Media Psychology Lab surveyed 1,166 people Americans aged from 16 to 91 on the psychological appeal of movie monsters. Many of the characteristics associated with Jason Voorhees were appealing to the participants. In the survey, Jason was considered to be an "unstoppable killing machine." Participants were impressed by the "cornucopic feats of slicing and dicing a seemingly endless number of adolescents and the occasional adult." Out of the ten monsters used in the survey—which included vampires, Freddy Krueger, Frankenstein's monster, Michael Myers, Godzilla, Chucky, Hannibal Lecter, King Kong and the Alien—Jason scored the highest in all the categories involving killing variables. Further characteristics that appealed to the participants included Jason's "immortality, his apparent enjoyment of killing [and] his superhuman strength."[103]

3 notes · View notes

warstrike · 5 years ago

Text

after reading punisher: the tyger, i’ve decided to modernize it a bit and make it into netflix frank’s backstory as well. i don’t agree with the implication of frank being a troubled kid / showing signs of violent behavior previously. the tyger poem is also essential to this characterization of the punisher, which i feel can apply to mcu frank, as well. under the cut is the tweaked story and his life as a child, influences into adulthood. in another post, i’ll explain the importance of the poem the tyger by william blake. it’s VERY lengthy im so sorry and more or less a synopsis of the comic shit. fair warning this mentions heavy topics. ill tag it if you’d like, i don’t go into detail, but it is implied.

his grandfather was involved in world world ii in the marines and later his father ( in place of frank, since frank is placed in the marines within the series ) was a vietnam vet. he was with louisa before he was drafted, and later married her following the end of the vietnam war. frank was born november 15th, 1980 and raised by both mario and louisa castiglione in queens.

growing up, frank had always had military influences in his life from both his father and his grandfather. his father didn’t talk about the war as much as his grandfather while he was alive, but as frank grew up, he learned to listen and discover things himself without asking. he knew where his father kept his medals, his old journal, the key to the box he kept it all in: he stood aside and listened. young frank kept to himself and was lost in his thoughts or imagination, which later prompted his interest in the poetry his mom kept around. the pictures depicted by words and worlds painted by the moods made a mental playground for him, it was anESCAPE for young frank. it gave him insight into a world full of color and mirth, something he was starting to realize the world around him lacked.

yet, his quietness didn’t equate to him being a pushover. most kids knew not to pick on frank, because despite his size he wasn’t afraid to fight back to defend himself or anyone being bullied. there was a protective streak to him towards kids who couldn’t protect themselves and he wanted to help, even when he always couldn’t.

ONTO EVENTS IN HIS CHILDHOOD THAT INFLUENCE HIS ACTIONS LATER IN LIFE …

when he was 10, he witnessed a man on fire after lighting a cigarette around paint fumes and spilling paint thinner on himself. this was while he was bringing his father lunch to the construction yard. a young frank watched the man burn, face blank and conflicted with what he was watching. still, he never looked away. later he soon listened to his parents recall the event that happened. his mother sympathetic, his father colder towards the man’s death and in general considering it not to be as big of a tragedy.

frank takes a class during the summer centered around the review of poetry and constructive meanings of it, overseen by father david. he attends it with a friend a few years older than him named lauren buvoli. lauren is as entranced, if not more, than frank is as a kid. he takes interest in her brother sal, a marine, and sometimes talks with him and asks questions related to his service ( this further installs his interest in the military as a child ). lauren and frank were close, close enough to where the events that steamroll into her life rocks his, too.

after a class with father david, frank and lauren walk home, holding a loose conversation about the poem the tyger ( which i’ll later get into ). during this walk home, lauren sees her friend sue, but how she sees her is a tragedy in itself. sue is in the middle of the road and the two see her hit and killed by the driver. suicide was a scarce topic back then, so many would dub it as an ‘accident’.

as it turns out, sue had been ‘involved’ with vincent rosa, the youngest son in one of the well-beloved and feared families in that part of queens. nobody ever talked bad about the rosas, at least not where somebody connected could potentially HEAR. there were darker things to discover about vincent rosa, and discover frank did. after listening to his parents talk about vincent and another girl, kate donegan, he went to talk to her brother and found out that vincent had been forcing himself on the girls he was with. sue, kate, and lauren, as it was later implied.

frank hadn’t seen lauren for days, she was always gone from home when he would go over to see her. a week went by, and he saw her in father david’s class, but she bailed at a moment’s notice. ran to the bus, homeward bound and frank ran after her, but missed the bus. it didn’t stop him, however, frank made his way to lauren’s house, but it was too late. her mom screamed from the back for her father, lauren had taken her life. all because of the rosa kid, and frank couldn’t do a damn thing. what’s a ten year old suppose to do, anyway, besides sit by and watch? it created a deep seated sense ofhelplessness, something he hated.

frank listened to how his mother reacted to the news about lauren towards his father, how she described the fear of men taking advantage of women. in that same conversation, he heard his father say he went with friends and sue’s father to go after albert rosa, vincent’s father, to confront them about his son’s actions. they were scared off, however, due to albert having threatened and his followers around him physically harm sue’s father as a warning to them. this prompted frank to attempt to go after vincent himself. he took the knowledge of the lockbox key and took his father’s gun and went to find vincent. when he got to vincent’s usual hangout and followed him out, he was too late. sal, lauren’s brother, had already decided he was going to take him out.

sal beat vincent and dragged his body to the cemetery to a hole he’d dug, tossed him in and lit him on fire. all the while a young frank castle watched and wrapped his head around the idea of hate.

TO CONCLUDE … to me, this story compacts more motivation for frank as an adult to do what he does. seeing such trauma as a child, hearing fear and seeing hate as a child sticks with you as you’re growing up. frank couldn’t do anything then. he couldn’t help lauren buvoli. he couldn’t say anything to make her feel better, he couldn’t DO anything to help her and stop her from doing what she did, he couldn’t avenge her. even if he had gotten to vincent first, the idea of a ten year old holding his own against a boy in his late teens is unreasonable. sal was a motivation for him, he showed a young frank castle what it was like to hate someone that much and make them pay. he didn’t understand that until he was older, until he lost his family and felt the trauma of loss and helplessness seep in again when he survived. this is how he adopted a maladaptive manner of dealing with grief and trauma. frank castle now can DO SOMETHING, he can feel a pang of retribution with each of the lives he takes. frank castle is the punisher. the tyger that damns people for the crimes they commit and the innocent lives they’ve shattered. he’s seen the dark parts of the world since he was a kid and has come to terms that the only way to stop it is to be the monster to the monsters.

#HC — HAPPINESS IS A KICK TO THE BALLS WAITING TO HAPPEN .#v relevant to my portrayal. i'm going to reread the poem and FINALLY do a post as to why the tyger is heavily subjected into frank's mind #that and his personal aspect of religion.#icb i wrote this a whole year ago aklfnga #ANALYSIS — PB WONT SHUT UP ABOUT FRANK .

4 notes · View notes

wiseabsol · 6 years ago

Text

WA Reviews “Dominion” by Aurelia le, Chapter 10: Rescue

Link: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/6383825/10/Dominion

Summary: For the Fire Nation royal siblings, love has always warred with hate. But neither the outward accomplishment of peace nor Azula’s defeat have brought the respite Zuko expected. Will his sister’s plans answer this, or only destroy them both?

Content Warnings: This story contains discussions and depictions of child abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and incest. This story also explores the idea that Zuko’s redemption arc (and his unlearning of abuse) is not as complete as the show suggested, and that Azula is not a sociopath (with the story having a lot of sympathy for her). If that doesn’t sound like your cup of tea, I would strongly recommend steering clear of this story and my reviews of it.

Note: Because these were originally posted as chapter reviews/commentaries, I will often be talking to the author in them (though sometimes I will also snarkily address the characters). While I’ve also tried not to spoil later events in the story in these reviews, I would strongly recommend reading through chapter 28 before reading these, just to be safe.

Now on to chapter 10!

CHAPTER 10: RESCUE

Diving right in, the author’s note. “Ozai’s objective was twofold. To train Azula to keep her head about her in the act”—so no getting distracted by thoughts of romance or sexual pleasure, then—“and to make her skilled enough (and convincing enough) that she could effectively distract her partner and/or make him compliant to her will.” So also heteronormative assumptions from Ozai, then. We also know that this had to be happening after Zuko was exiled but before Azula was sent on her mission, so this training was taking place when she was roughly eleven to thirteen years of age. That is um…well, pedophilic, for one, Ozai, but also far too early for Azula to be mature enough for that, either physically or psychologically (not that any of this would have been “better” if she was older, because it’s traumatizing regardless). However, grooming like this starts early, so sadly, this is truth in television.

Ah, there was a Dai Li agent in the asylum staff. I did not catch that, but it does explain how the Earth Kingdom learned that Zuko was missing that night, in addition to Azula breaking out.

Anyway, on to the chapter itself. Azula is incognito as a peasant, which is probably a cute look for her. Azula is pretending to be Rai’s cousin, which isn’t a bad plan on Rai’s part, even if Azula snootily think they look nothing alike. Then we get a mention of the late Lu Ten with his “sleepy eyes.” I wonder if that’s a dig at his Earth Kingdom features, or if Lu Ten was legit always tired from war training. Given that this is about the physical appearances of relatives differing, I’m guessing the former.

Azula shows some paranoia about the pirates possibly recognizing her and planning to turn her in for a bounty, but she dismisses the thought quickly. And really, why would they recognize her at this point? They don’t know that she escaped from Ember Island, barely anyone has seen her for four years, and Rai gave a reasonable excuse for her presence on the ship. I’m sure the pirates are too caught up in their own affairs to give Azula much thought, but I’m sure that Azula, who was rather used to being the center of attention, might have some trouble believing that.

Rai, though, definitely knows who Azula is, given that she treats Azula with “grating familiarity” and “deference by turns” and knows how Azula likes her baths.

“She had deliberately avoided looking in any mirrors when she left the house on Ember Island”—nice callback to her hallucination in the show! I’d be spooked of them too in Azula’s position.

“Her split lip had knit almost completely in the intervening days, to a tender pink that Azula knew from experience would not scar”—so Azula has had her lip split enough times to know if this will leave a lasting mark. Given how much lipstick she wore in the show, this suggests that Azula probably does have a scar or two on her lips.

“She never used to bruise so easily”—there are also some awful implications here, but the more pressing point is that Azula’s health has taken a hit from her time in the asylum.

“Leave it to her clumsy brother to injure someone during sex, Azula reflected wearily. Sometimes she wondered how Mai put up with him. But he was probably a lot nicer to Mai, since he cared for her at all. Azula thought that probably made a difference, when people had sex.”—That Azula has to guess this is heartbreaking. Also, this means that she never once felt loved while having sex. I wouldn’t expect her to, but it’s a painful reminder that her only experiences with it have been violent.

Azula then second-guesses herself, in this case about why she bothered to put on makeup at the house. My guess is that it made her feel more like herself, which she must have needed after those years in the asylum. She admonishes herself for, essentially, questioning if she should have done things differently. Like many abuse victims after the fact, she is policing her own thoughts here, reminding herself that her abuser—Ozai—wouldn’t like seeing her so “weak.” She also thinks that he would be “right” to hate her for it, when really, this is the normal response to getting hurt. Azula has a lot of lessons to unlearn. We also learn that Azula used to see hallucinations of Ozai, too, which is upsetting.

Rai, when she walks in on the still naked Azula and sees the bruises, comments on it: “With men like that, it never stops. No matter what they promise.” However, I doubt that Azula is ready to face that realization about her father—that no matter how much she gave to him, he would never stop hurting her, because she would never be enough. “That was not the first indication Rai had given that she escaped an abusive relationship, and believe Azula had just done the same. She was content enough to let the cook keep thinking that”—except that it actually is true for Azula, given how Ozai and Zuko treated her.

We get an interesting bit of characterization after this. “It was the respect Rai afforded her . . . that made the princess truly wary. If she were the same breed of royalty as Zuko, she might think this a natural consequence of her noble bearing, and no more than she was due. But Azula was second-born, and she knew that it was not enough to be owed obedience, loyalty, or love. You had to exact it. You had to earn it. It would not simply be given.”

Three out of four of those makes sense. However, love isn’t something that anyone should have to “earn.” It should be freely given, especially between family members—which, of course, is not something that the adults in Azula’s life taught her. Or, in Ozai’s case, thought advantageous to teach her.

Azula, in her musing about Rai and the cover story she gave her, raises a point about Zuko gutting their high military command and “beggaring” the realm with war reparations. I wonder how much truth there is to this, or if Azula’s view of Fire Nation superiority is coloring her perspective on the matter.

Moving on, Azula is approached by Rai’s assistant, a pre-pubescent boy who has a crush on Azula. “Azula saw that he still had all his teeth. Quite an accomplishment among this lot.” Oh lol at her internal snark. The boy asks her out, but Azula shoots him down. Rai reproaches her for that, and apparently this is a conversation that they’ve had before, because Azula mentioned to Rai that the boy would like anyone with prominent breasts who wasn’t over thirty, which Rai didn’t appreciate. I wonder if it’s the cynicism about guys or the dig at Rai’s age that Rai didn’t like.

“And people wondered why she lied, when she got looks like that for telling the truth, Azula considered. She learned a long time ago which option served her better. And anyway, she shouldn’t care what a peasant thought of her.”—Except Azula does care what Rai thinks because Rai reminds her of Ursa. Also, Zula, this is where the sentiment of “Azula always lies” came from.

“‘I knew his like once,’ Azula contradicted darkly, thinking of her brother before he got his scar. ‘You shouldn’t let the helpless exterior fool you.’”—Azula, honey, the kid is twelve. Don’t project your baggage with Zuko onto him.

“‘Really?’ the cook asked in genuine surprise. ‘I hadn’t thought—’”—Rai is assuming that Azula means a nice young man who she got romantically involved with, and is surprised, because as far as Rai knows, no one ever courted Azula. Her thoughts wouldn’t make the jump to Zuko, because that’s not a connection that most people would intuitively make. Azula, on the other hand, has a hard time distinguishing between familial and…I don’t want to say romantic, but romantic bonds, because of the incestuous abuse she went through.

Rai is actually aware of the incest, albeit not between Zuko and Azula, but we’re still getting to that reveal. As it is, Rai confirms that she knows Azula by almost calling her “my lady.”

After that, Azula has a conversation with some of the ship hands. There is an amusing moment where Azula thinks that Mai would be disgusted by the flamboyant outfit of the captain, and a less amusing moment when it’s mentioned that one of the crewmen wanted to get into Azula’s pants after she “officially” boarded the ship. Said crewmen calls Azula a whore, she retorts with her characteristic sarcasm, and he tries to attack her, but is held back by his crewmates. We learn that this charmer’s name is Lee, and doesn’t like being ordered around by women, so he’s definitely going to be a problem moving forward. After this, Azula follows Rai into town, albeit at a distance. I get why Azula’s instinct to spy on Rai is there, but a part of me is also like, “Maybe you could have just asked her some questions first, Zula?”

Next we meet up with Iroh! Hi Iroh! He’s arrived at the Fire Nation to check on Zuko and the post-Azula’s escape situation. It turns out that General Shin, the mole in the previous chapter, has been murdered in a gruesome way. This had to have been ordered by someone at court, who made the same connection that Zuko did. I suspect that the killers being loyalists to Azula and Ozai is probably right, but honestly, it could have been anyone, since Shin betrayed his country and the royal family.

Iroh hears other rumors on his way to the palace, some closer to the truth than others. “But hearing so much slander and baseless speculation against his nephew made Iroh’s blood boil”—Iroh, you should know that there has to be some kernels of truth in the gossip. You’re part of the White Lotus, catch up, buddy.

We learn that most of the palace kitchen staff was replaced after someone tried to poison Zuko’s food. There’s probably been a lot of turnover in general, between Azula dismissing most of her staff and Zuko replacing most of his. Interestingly, there hasn’t been any more assassination attempts since Lu Ten was born, possibly because it would have meant that the cleverer Mai or Iroh would have become Lu Ten’s regents, and would be harder to manipulate than Zuko. That being said, given what seems to be Mai’s fertility problems and how difficult Lu Ten’s birth was, I’m surprised that no one gunned for Lu Ten after he was born. Sure, the response of the royal family would have been filled with fire and blood, but what would they do afterwards? Unless Mai could have another child, which seems unlikely, they would have been facing a succession crisis. A lot of people would have been eager to take advantage of that opportunity.

Anyway, Iroh learns some of Zuko’s movements as of late, and we get the detail that Zuko burned his and Mai’s—once Ozai’s—bed. I can’t say that I blame him, considering that that is likely where Azula was assaulted. There’s also something rather, uh, skin-crawly about the fact that not only was Lu Ten presumably conceived there, but (SPOILER) so was the child that Azula aborted.

After this, Iroh goes to find his nephew, and overhears Mai and Lu Ten’s nanny arguing over whether Zuko should be left alone with his son. Mai, despite being livid with Zuko, says that he would never hurt Lu Ten and would sooner hurt himself. The nanny, however, is pretty sure that Zuko will hurt himself, and I’m like, “Yeah, nanny’s got a point here, Zuko’s losing it right now.”

Iroh immediately picks up on the fact that Zuko and Mai’s relationship is rocky, though doesn’t hazard a guess as to why. He also wonders if “keeping certain aspects of their family from Zuko” was the right call. I would say no, given that it meant that Zuko was unprepared for Azula’s behavior after she was triggered, and he might have had a better idea of how to respond had he known. Also, Iroh should have told the doctors what he learned, as gross as he found it. It’s not like the doctors could help her if they didn’t know what her underlying problems were.

Iroh remembers his last visit to Ozai, when he accused his brother of sexually abusing Azula. Ozai at first tries to deny it, then shrugs it off when he realizes that Iroh won’t buy the lie. “He had been just the same as a child, never clinging to falsehoods as most children would when caught in a lie, but admitting ugly truths with a studied disdain. As if lying were a game he chose not to play anymore, because it had lost its fun. A stale joke not worth examining further, and wasn’t the other person fool for paying any mind to it?” This is very creepy.

“Iroh should have known that he could never be trust with a child—any child—even one so obviously suited to him as Azula. Especially one so obviously suited to him as Azula.”—Two things, Iroh. First, there’s subtle demonization of Azula going on here. Second, she didn’t resemble Ozai when she was a very young child. Ozai molded her after himself in large part because you and Ursa took a hands-off approach to her. Azula might have turned out very differently had you been more of a presence in her life. This is why Aunt Tam scowls at you from the AU.

The conversation continues for a while, with Ozai pointing out that Zuko hates Azula, and Iroh internally denying that. “But his sparing Azula and seeking her recovery were proof enough [that Zuko loved Azula] for Iroh.” I think they’re both right. Zuko does love Azula, but that love is buried under a lot of baggage.

Iroh comes out of this memory to find Zuko looking like a wreck. There’s a bittersweet interaction between Zuko and little Lu Ten, then the nanny retrieves the toddler. Iroh and Zuko start talking—Iroh notices that Zuko keeps apologizing, wracked with guilt as he is—and Zuko is upset at how everyone knows that he burned Ozai.

“‘They’re servants. They talk,’ Iroh reminded him patiently, remember that Zuko had never been particularly good with people, and couldn’t be expected to know this.’”—And this is the man you put on the throne. Granted, he was the only viable option, but still, Iroh. Maybe you should have insisted that he come to a few White Lotus seminars to learn this stuff?

They start getting into the subject of how Ozai abused Azula, and Iroh remembers how he found out: “He heard it in her soft words, read it in her fingers straining, eyes as empty as a doll’s. Dead on the surface, screaming underneath.” Yeah, we’ll get to THAT scene eventually, but this also tells us that Azula was almost certainly too traumatized by her training for her be “convincing” at sex. She was disassociating during that incident with Iroh, but that still reads more like fear and desperation than seeming into it. Honestly, Ozai, maybe you should have just waited until she was older and found a nice sex worker to instruct Azula in this stuff. Albeit that wouldn’t have ended well for the sex worker, and that would have meant yielding control of the situation to Azula and said sex worker, but like. If you had to do something like this—which you definitely didn’t, let’s be clear here—there had to be less awful ways to go about it.

Anyway, Zuko quickly realizes that he’s not telling Iroh anything new about Ozai and Azula, and Zuko—in his outrage over Iroh not saying anything about this to him or Azula’s doctors—almost admits what happened on the night that Azula escaped. Iroh jumps to the conclusion that maybe Zuko killed Azula, and that’s why he’s acting so guilty: “It would have been self-defense, or an accident. It had to be, but Zuko would blame himself, Iroh knew. That was the kind of man his nephew was. Iroh knew the kind of man his nephew was.” You most certainly do not, Iroh. I think that Iroh is invested in believing that Zuko is better than the rest of his family and can redeem it, though. This makes him blind to the fact that Zuko still has problems rooted in abuse. To be fair, Zuko made a lot of progress towards becoming a better person over the course of the series, but that was also when he was apart from the toxicity of his core family. Stepping back into it was bound to dreg up behavior like this, because Zuko never properly worked through it. He ignored the problem, rather than face it, because it was easier. Basically, the poor kid needed some therapy where his sister and parents were concerned, but didn’t get it.

“But his denial came swiftly enough that Iroh knew it was the truth.”—Yeah, Iroh, Zuko didn’t kill Azula. He raped her. Your pick as to which of those things is worse.

Zuko admits that Mai knows what happened, but I don’t see Mai spilling those beans to Iroh. Iroh also thinks that “[Zuko] looked almost scared, ashamed, terribly lonely. All things he had no business being.” Oh Iroh, no, Zuko definitely earned this. Mind you, this is not a productive way for Zuko to be spending his time, because becoming a recluse means he’s not dealing with the political conflict around him OR helping make it up to Mai and Azula.

The conversation turns back to Ozai, and while both Zuko and Iroh agree that Ozai should be executed for what he did, there would be no way to explain it without revealing the abuse that Azula went through. They don’t actually say the last part, but that’s what would have to happen, and Azula would be horrified to have it revealed. It would also cause a scandal that would either damage her reputation or make people feel sympathy for her, the latter of which wouldn’t be good for Zuko, politically-speaking. Though who knows, the people might be like, “Hell yeah, you go kiddo, burning your rapist father!” Or maybe not. Kinslaying is probably a no-no in their culture. Not that it stopped Ozai, but still.

Iroh reminds Zuko that he can’t just kill people because he’s the Fire Lord, like Ozai did, and naturally Zuko freaks out at the implication that he is anything like his father. The first step to moving away from abusive patterns is in acknowledging where those similarities are, though, Zuko. As a side note, Iroh, what even is the point of a hereditary monarchy if the king’s word isn’t law? I’m being a little sarcastic here, but that is why people squabbled over thrones as much as they did throughout history—because it meant being able to do whatever you wanted, at least while your reign lasted.

“‘If you kill him, Azula will never forgive you.’”—I mean, probably not. I’m not sure that she’s fully realized that he was abusive to her yet. I think there were points during her training where she knew that something was wrong, and that Ozai might end up killing her, but once she wasn’t in immediate danger, she could justify his actions to herself. After all, the alternative was that she’d invested herself into someone who could never love her and was only using her, and that is a terrifying and humiliating realization to have, and would have made her feel even more alone. This is another one of those, “How would Aunt Tam’s inclusion have effected this?” sort of thing. Azula is nineteen in this fic. Would she have been able to make more progress in recognizing Ozai’s abusiveness earlier, had she had a healthy adult relationship as contrast? I would hope so, but I’m not sure.

Moving on, Zuko’s response to this is that Azula will never forgive him anyway, and Zuko will never forgive himself, so why not just kill Ozai? Iroh tries to appeal to Zuko’s better nature here, but honestly, the best reason to give Zuko is that it would be political suicide, which—while Zuko might not care about how it affects him—would negatively impact Mai and Lu Ten. That might have a chance of scaring Zuko straight.

Zuko admits to surrendering to his “lowest instincts,” and a part of me is like, “Iroh, when you realize down the road that (SPOILER) Azula is pregnant, are you going to put these two things together?” I would think that he is smart enough to figure it out, buuuuut again, he has blind spots where Zuko is concerned, and incest is not a conclusion that most people would jump to.

“But Iroh could not help him take it back. He didn’t even know what it was.” There is no taking it back, Iroh. Zuko can’t un-fuck this situation.

In any case, Iroh is going to step in to make sure Zuko survives, even if Zuko doesn’t care about his own survival. Good on you, Iroh, and good luck.

Shifting back over to Azula, she’s shooting down Rai’s messenger hawk to Iroh. That hasn’t been revealed yet, but that is what’s going on here. The bowmaker whose bow she borrowed is not pleased, while the waif who watched her shoot down the bird thinks she’s pretty cool. Azula thinks that her hallucinatory mother should be scolding her for killing animals and threatening small children, and that “defenseless little creatures should know by now to stay away from her . . . Even the stupid turtleducks had that much sense.” This is mildly painful because it’s Azula putting herself down, but also mildly funny in light of the defenseless little creature that will eventually come under Azula’s care.

In any case, the stall-keeper and the kid go tell on Azula for killing the bird, and Azula makes a reference to Toph: “At least the Beifong girl has some excuse, using her feet to see as she did….” Toph and Azula’s potential friendship always intrigues me in fanfic, though who knows if such a thing will form in “Thrones.”

“‘It was that little colonist, with her Fire eyes.’ The earthbenders exchanged a look that Azula couldn’t decipher from her vantage.”—Alright, so the earthbenders have been told to be on the lookout for Azula.

“‘She wasn’t a customer . . . She didn’t even buy anything….’”—I FEEL YOUR PAIN, WEI JIN! RETAIL IS THE WORST!

“Father would, but he was in prison… Soon, she promised herself. And him.”—Girl, let him rot in prison. He deserves it.

Moving on, Azula starts to read Rai’s coded message to Iroh, and feels stung by the betrayal. Betrayal is never going to stop hurting, Zula. The message, in any case, tells Iroh that Azula is traveling incognito, that General How is likely to start a war if he succeeds in killing Azula, and some of Azula’s movements.

“She wondered what clumsy lie Zuko would tell to cover his mistakes this time, and if Iroh and his friends would find him out. Mai had probably discovered the truth already, if she knew that knife-wielding traitor….” Azula maintains a grudging respect of Mai’s competence, even after Mai turned on her. She’s still upset by it, though, if her tears are any indication.

“Her uncle lived in Ba Sing Se now, she recalled, though she couldn’t say just how she knew.”—So her talks with Iroh towards the beginning of her stay in the asylum are murky to her, meaning that she probably doesn’t remember revealing Ozai’s abuse to him.

Azula dismisses the idea of killing Rai, because she doesn’t want to leave a trail of bodies behind her. I’m trying to remember if Azula has actually killed anyone in the backstory established in this fic thus far? I’m thinking that she hasn’t.

We get a funny callback to the series with the enthusiastic merchant on the docks, before Azula returns to the ship. There is also this darkly funny passage as she goes into the captain’s chamber: “In her experience, it was usually enough to simply act purposeful, and no one would question your purpose. A lesson her brother could take to heart. She conceded it might be harder to manipulate appearances with a quarter of your face burned off, but Zuko didn’t even try.” I should not find this amusing, but the audacity of it makes me smile.

Azula then vandalizes the captain’s world map by drawing the Pai Sho grid over it and then begins to forge a new message from Rai to Iroh. During this process, she realizes that Rai was a cook in the palace kitchen and one of the people she banished. She also remembers that Rai was relieved to go, but Azula never followed up on that. Azula admonishes herself for not making this connection sooner, and for trusting Rai like she did her friends.

“But half-hanged? Was she supposed to be in some danger here?”—Holy god, YES, Azula, you’re in a lot of danger! The Earth Kingdom wants to execute you for showing them up!

“A forgery had gained her father his throne”—Azulon’s will, no doubt—“with some timely intervention from her mother”—This was implied in canon, but this confirms that Ursa had a part in Azulon’s death. Apparently Ozai taught Azula how to forge messages early, because of course he did.

“That crafty old bastard could do with a dose of humility anyway.”—Honestly, Iroh, it’s kind of true. You and Azula have more in common in terms of your strategic minds than you think.

“With both of us at it, I’m sure we shall eventually succeed.”—LOL, Azula. Never change.

Azula, with the forged message in tow, robs Rai’s things, including what she briefly worries might be Rai’s life savings. The fact that the thought does give her pause is a reminder that Azula has a conscience, even if she ignores it.

Oh lord, so Azula goes looking for food, and I forgot that Lee decides to attack Azula at the end of this chapter. First he does her the favor of revealing that there is a bounty on her head, including wanted posters. Then he reveals that he’s put blasting jelly on the floor of the hold, because he’s A.) An idiot, and B.) Wants to scare Azula into letting him rape her before he hands her over to the authorities. He’s a real piece of work.

In the ensuing fight, he manages to pin her down, though she bites his tongue and thinks, “It was no defense her father ever taught her, but it served” and my skin crawls. After that, Azula sets his beard on fire, which gets him to let her go. She then knocks him out, but vomits afterwards. “When had she ever been this squeamish? It wasn’t as if she killed him….” I’m pretty sure Azula is reacting to shock from the attempted sexual assault here, and to the reminder of the violations she’s already experienced. Her body remembers, even if her brain is scrambling away from the thought.

“Granted, she had only ever killed one person, and then only technically, since he came back to life.”—So Azula is confirmed to have never actually killed anyone. Good to know!

“For Azula, it was not a matter of wanting to kill anyone. It was a matter of them needing to be dead. She allowed that her brother might be an exception. But then sometimes, she thought he just brought that out in people.”—This makes her very different from Ozai, who took pleasure in dominating over and killing people. Guy basically had a hard-on while burning the Earth Kingdom countryside.

Moving on, Rai finds Azula in the aftermath of the fight and is horrified on Azula’s behalf. Azula immediately reveals that she knows that Rai is a traitor, and Rai is upset at this turn of events—she genuinely wanted to help Azula—though Azula doesn’t see that, instead thinking that Rai is pretending. Azula makes a cynical comment to that effect, which shows us that she’s internalized Ozai’s belief that all people are selfish at heart. Rai, bless her, reveals the death sentence hanging over Azula’s head.

She also tries to get Azula to consider trusting Iroh, but Iroh burned that bridge years ago. He was, after all, the one who said, “She’s crazy and has to go down” to Zuko. He’s also biased in Zuko’s favor, and didn’t tell her doctors some very pertinent information about her, so I don’t think he’s equipped to help Azula. At best, he could hide her, but that wouldn’t be the freedom she wants and needs.

“The cook just gazed sadly at her, the sort of look her mother used to give her when Azula said something unkind.”—Another comparison to Ursa. New AU Idea: Rai adopts Azula and they sail the seas together as pirates. Let’s be honest, Azula would have fun as a pirate queen.

Rai is unsurprised when Azula reveals that she stole her money, and a part of me wonders if Rai purposefully made the money easy to find. After all, she presumably hid money from her abusive husband, so she might have more skill with concealing her valuables than Azula thinks.

“Be thankful it wasn’t your life I took, traitor. But she couldn’t bring herself to say it.”—Yeah, Azula has a conscience, however much she tries to pretend that she doesn’t.

Azula decides that it’s time to leave and doesn’t bother gathering some food before she goes, even though she does think about it. I think she’s too upset to bother, even though it would be the smarter thing to do, strategically speaking. Buying food from a vendor means she might be spotted by her pursuers, after all. The pirates do notice that her shirt has been torn open, but don’t ask about it, or come after her when she steals one of the lifeboats. In an impressive feat of firebending, Azula makes mist steam from the river to cover her escape, and then has a bit of a cry.

“Not for rescue, as most passengers might do on such craft. She knew how that would end, had always known. Even if she denied it to herself. She didn’t know why she denied it to herself.”—Because it’s really fucking lonely to think that no one is coming to help you, Azula, that’s why. Especially when Rai gave you hope that someone would.

The A/N makes a good point about why the situation with Lee had to go down, and going this route means that Azula has finally succeeded in fending off unwanted sexual advances from someone. Right now, though, Azula is very shaken, so we’ll have to see if her confidence in herself takes a hit from this, or is bolstered.

Once again, thank you for the read, Aurelia! I hope to get to chapter eleven sometime soon!

Sincerely, WiseAbsol

#WiseAbsol #Dominion by Aurelia le #Fanfiction #Review #Azula #avatar: the last airbender

7 notes · View notes

drtarunparashar · 2 years ago

Text

9 Different Types of Asthma - You Should Be Aware Before it is Too Late

If you think that asthma is just a general disease with no other types and kinds, think again! Asthma actually is comprised of several types and it is important for doctors to specifically assess and diagnose of what type of asthma their patient is suffering from. This will enable the doctor to prescribe the appropriate medicine and give the needed recommendations.

1) Allergic Asthma

This type of asthma is the most common among all the other types. Statistics show that kids are more prone to allergic asthma with 90% having the disorder. Allergens such as molds, pollen and mites are the most common culprit of allergic asthma. Exercising in cold air or inhaling strong fumes, dust, smoke, perfumes or colognes can actually make it worse. Pulmonologist in Jaipur

Since allergens can be found everywhere, people with allergic asthma must be careful with the places they go to as well as be vigilant in the cleanliness of their surroundings. As much as possible, they should steer away from dusty places and make their home or work-area as dust-free as possible.

2) Non-Allergic Asthma

From the name itself, it is obvious that non-allergic asthma is not triggered by any allergy-related factors. Usually it appears after middle age and is most often a result of recurrent infections in the lower and upper respiratory tract.

Just like allergic asthma, Non-Allergic is triggered by factors not related to allergies. It is characterized by the obstruction of the airways due to inflammation that is partially reversible and controllable with proper medication. Although the causes of non-allergic asthma may be different, the symptoms are still the same; wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, rapid breathing and tightening of the chest.

Non-allergic asthma can be triggered by intangible factors such as stress, anxiety, over or under exercise, cold air, hyperventilation, dry air, viruses, smoke, and other irritants. Unlike allergic asthma, the non-allergic type does not involve the immune system in the reaction.

3) Nocturnal Asthma

From the name itself, it is quite obvious that this type has something to do with sleep. And yes, it actually has something to do with sleep because it disturbs or disrupts the sleeper's good night sleep. It deprives individuals from having a good night's sleep because they usually waken in the middle of the night by very dry coughs.

Tightening of the chest is one of the very first symptoms of nocturnal asthma, followed by a series of uncontrollable, dry coughs. This type is one of the least preferred asthma because it is actually a scary kind. Who would want to wake up in the middle of the night feeling helpless and unable to breathe?

4) Occupational Asthma

Again, the background and cause of this type of asthma can already be guessed or determined from the name itself. This kind is just like any other kind where the only thing that makes it distinct from others is that it is acquired in the place where an individual is working. Best Pulmonologist in Jaipur

Perhaps one of the most common occupations that induces asthma are teaching (chalk dust exposure), factory workers (exposure to dust and other powders), painters and construction workers (exposure to paint and other fumes), etc.

The symptoms are no different from the symptoms of the abovementioned other types; wheezing, dry coughs, tightening of the chest, rapid and shallow breathing are still present.

5) Child-onset Asthma

This usually occurs when children are exposed to certain allergens such as dust mites, fungi, animal proteins, and other potential allergens. When a young child or infant wheezes during viral infections, it may be a hint that asthma may be brewing around the corner as they grow older.

6) Adult-onset Asthma

It can easily be described as a type of asthma that develops during adulthood. It may be allergic, non-allergic, occupational, mixed, seasonal or nocturnal. The distinct characteristic is that it occurs in adulthood.

7) Cough-variant Asthma

This kind of asthma may be a bit difficult to diagnose since it can be confused with other kinds of cough that may be related to chronic bronchitis, sinus diseases or post nasal drips due to hay fever. It would usually take a lot of tests and check-ups before the doctor can make a proper diagnosis.

8) Mixed Asthma

This is a mixture of extrinsic and intrinsic asthma. This is a more serious kind since the sufferer must be vigilant to both extrinsic and intrinsic factors that can trigger asthma attacks.

9) Seasonal Asthma

From the name itself, seasonal asthma only occurs during certain seasons wherein the pollens or other allergens seem to be more present than any other season. For exam

0 notes

manlyman06 · 7 years ago

Text

Katara and Toph or how to make strong women

I talk here about stRong in the term of good writing no just strong about badass skills even if this have a important part in their developement.

Let describes each of this character:

You will find the entire article in the great blog: http://femalefortitude.blogspot.com I advise you to go take a look ;)

Katara : She should have been the heroine of the serie in my opinion, she is a young girl who despites her young age take many responsability, she take care of her family and organize the most part of the journey with their group, she is very interesting beacause despites having cleary amother role, she have goals she have doubts and defaults, she thinks about her and have a strong wil.

Her dreams it’s to becoming a Master in water bending, by make her dream comes true she doesn’t hesitate to steal a trarining parchement, that can be view as a bad thing but it is very coherent due to the situation that she see Ang becoming more and more powerful with the water bending, and i don’t think it’s jealousy i think is ambitious, but the moment in the serie where we see that is real deveolop character and not just a female support for the hero is in the Northern Water Tribe episode.

Having worked with Aang to develop her ability, Katara seeks a master to train her. Unfortunately, the best instructor available, Master Pakku, refuses her entry to his program. In the Northern Water Tribe, he tells her, female benders learn how to heal while their male counterparts learn how to do everything else. Katara rejects this model, saying, “I don’t want to heal, I want to fight!”

She soon gets her chance; Pakku dismisses her as a “little girl,” and Katara challenges him to a duel if he’s “man enough” to take her on There are in this scene a very important moment in my opinion where Ang says to her “ do not do it for me as if in every serie the female support doing thing only because of a male character, and she replies i’m not doing this for you i’m doing rhis to teach him a lesson Aware of her own inferior bending technique and the reality of her inevitable defeat, Katara nevertheless chooses to face Pakku and forces him to fight her

IInn “The Runaway episode,” Sokka reveals that he relies on Katara’s strength and responsible nature. He describes the role Katara has played in his life since their mother’s death: “I’m not sure I can remember what my mother looked like. It really seems like my whole life Katara’s been the one looking out for me.

Her important personal quest is getting revenge on the Fire Nation soldier who killed her mother. Both Sokka and Aang try to dissuade her, telling her that she should forgive the soldier and move on, but Katara says that that would be impossible. When Zuko tells her to save her strength, she tells him that she has plenty: “I’m not the helpless little girl I was when they came.” Implicit in this statement and in Katara’s recollection that her mother sacrificed herself to protect her is Katara’s feeling of guilt. She has immense power now, but she couldn’t protect her mother when it counted. She had to rely on her mother’s strength so that she could one day increase her own. For Katara, a child who not only suspects, but knows that her mother exchanged her life for her own, it would be impossible not to think of her death as Katara’s fault. Tracking down and punishing the man who physically did the deed might allow Katara to feel less responsible.

This doesn’t mean that Katara is above doing terrible things in her quest for revenge and redemption, which becomes evident when Katara bloodbends the man she suspects is Kya’s killer. When it proves to be the wrong man, she appears disheartened, but not particularly remorseful. The weapon that once horrified her is now just another in her arsenal. Still, when she finds the killer, she uses only normal waterbending, which suggests that some of that initial reticence has been restored. She still resists becoming Hama’s successor.

When it comes time to make a decision, Katara decides not to kill the former soldier. She explains the situation to Aang: “I wanted to do it. I wanted to take out all my anger at him, but I couldn’t. I don’t know if it’s because I’m too weak to do it, or if it’s because I’m strong enough not to.” Aang tells her that she did the right thing, and that forgiveness is the first step toward healing. Katara replies, “But I didn’t forgive him. I’ll never forgive him.” She does, however, forgive Zuko. This is a significant point in Katara’s characterization. Whole episodes are devoted to Aang learning how to let things go, and we know that he has had to overcome the loss of his people in order to become a better Avatar. We appreciate his thoughts about forgiveness because we know that he knows what he’s talking about. But Aang and Katara are very different people, and her inability to forgive is just as important to her character as his unwillingness to take revenge. After watching three seasons of A:TLA, the viewer knows that she holds grudges, that she has immense stores of rage, and that the loss of her mother has informed much of her personality. To take violent revenge would be to become Hama, but to forgive Kya’s killer would be to stop being Katara.

Source : http://femalefortitude.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-last-waterbender.html

Toph : Is my favorite in the entire show she is funny, endearing, stubborn or determined ^^, I find in her all the i love about my girlfriend ^^

Toph’s introductory episode is an explicit rebuttal to the typical portrayal of people with disabilities. The first time we meet her, she is defending her title at a WWE-style earthbending competition as the Blind Bandit. Aang, Katara, and Sokka are initially skeptical; surely a tiny twelve-year-old blind girl couldn’t beat a bunch of full-grown men. However, she can and does, and she is only defeated when Aang unfairly uses airbending in his challenge for the title.

Later in the episode, after she and Aang have been kidnapped, Toph’s father reveals that his primary reason for keeping her close is her blindness. When Sokka and Katara ask for her help to save Aang, her father states, “My daughter is blind. She is blind and tiny and helpless and fragile. She cannot help you.” Toph, confronted with her father’s low opinion of her ability, says simply, “Yes, I can.” Sokka and Katara offer to help her, but she declines. Then she takes on all seven adult earthbenders at once and she wipes the floor with them.

Toph’s father is presented as controlling and irrational, and the show condemns his point of view. He is wrong for controlling her and for viewing her in terms of what she can’t do instead of who she is. By condemning him, the show rejects the usual approach to the mainstream portrayal of disability. It strengthens this message by having Toph defend her actions with very little reference to her blindness, instead framing the conversation as a matter of agency versus control. She doesn’t explain that she has devised a method of sight that involves reading vibrations in the earth, thereby “overcoming” her disability. Rather, she points out that she’s good at fighting, that she loves it, and that she deserves to exist and be accepted as she is. Ultimately, she joins Team Avatar because they can give her that acceptance.

The shift in Toph’s loyalty from her biological family to her found family forms the bulk of her character arc, and it is best exemplified in the development of her relationship with Katara. In “The Chase,” nurturing team mom Katara comes into conflict with the recently liberated Toph. Toph refuses to help the others set up camp, claiming that she can pull her own weight. The tension increases over the course of the episode, in which Team Avatar endures a sleepless night spent fleeing from Azula’s relentless pursuit, eventually causing Toph to leave the group. She runs into Zuko’s uncle, Iroh, to whom she confesses, “People see me and think I’m weak. They wanna take care of me, but I can take care of myself, by myself.” Iroh tells her that there is nothing wrong with getting help from the people who love you, and she decides to rejoin the team.

Katara tries to re-define their friendship as a relationship between equals by offering to pull a scam with Toph. In this way, she can show Toph that she’s fun while hopefully removing the baggage of projected parental failure from their relationship. At the end of the episode, Toph tells Katara that she was right and asks Katara to help her write a letter to her parents, thereby relieving her of her role as maternal figure as Toph seeks to re-open communication with her actual mother.

The exchange that follows is remarkable. Katara tries to tell Toph that the girls had no idea what they were talking about, but Toph assures her that “It’s okay. One of the good things about being blind is that I don’t have to waste my time worrying about appearances. I don’t care what I look like. I’m not looking for anyone’s approval. I know who I am.” Still, she’s crying as she says it. Katara notices and tailors her response to reinforce Toph’s value as a person, even as she also addresses the unspoken question: “That’s what I really admire about you, Toph. You’re so strong and confident and self-assured, and I know it doesn’t matter, but you’re really pretty.” This response earns Katara the (should-be) coveted Beifong shoulder punch of affection.

This is particularly interesting in light of Toph’s complicated relationship with gender performance. Whereas Katara fights to be allowed access to traditionally male spaces, Toph’s domination in Earth Rumble V and VI proves that she’s already there. As far as we know, she spent all of her time at home with her parents and servants, with regular visits from her earthbending teacher, Master Yu. It’s no surprise that a sheltered, disempowered kid would want to emulate the competitive earthbenders’ overt displays of strength and forge a place for herself among them. Joining their ranks, however, necessarily requires her to immerse herself in their hyper-masculine subculture, based on violence and trash talking. Toph happily becomes a master of both.

ne of the incontrovertible truths of the A:TLAworld is that it is impossible to bend metal. Xin Fu says as much when he tells Toph, “You might think you’re the greatest earthbender in the world, but even you can’t bend metal.” For a time, even Toph believes this. As all of her ploys to get out of the box prove unfruitful, however, she looks to the metal itself. Overlaid on the scene is the voice-over of a guru, telling Aang that all of the elements are connected. Even metal, he says, is just “a part of earth that has been purified and refined.” Without the benefit of hearing this voice-over, Toph nevertheless finds the impurities in the metal box and physically pries it apart. When her captors come back to investigate, she imprisons them in the box, exclaiming as she leaves, “I am the greatest earthbender in the world! Don’t you two dunderheads ever forget it.” In this scene, we see the essence of Toph. She finds herself in a seemingly impossible situation, so she does the impossible to get out of it. She has been locked in a cage -- a metal box, the prison of her parents’ house, the jail of their controlling affection, or the dark dungeon that others assume she is confined to due to her blindness -- and she forges her way to freedom. Ultimately, Toph Beifong is a character who finds empowerment in disempowerment, turning perceived weaknesses into real strengths.

All the analysis belong to femalefortitude.blogspot.com

Source :http://femalefortitude.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-greatest-earthbender-in-world.html

#katara #toph beifong #feminism

3 notes · View notes

committoreality · 7 years ago

Text

The myth of the “Patriarchy”

As a sociology student, I was taught very early on that there are these sensitizing concepts that point to realities in the world. In intro sociology I learned that women are oppressed by men. That the world can be characterized into victim or perpetrator. All relations and organizations fall into that pattern.

In class the other day my professor was noting that there are so many women in sociology in first year, but as you progress up to master degrees, and PhD, nearly all the students are men. This is actually not the case. But that’s a different discussion. The thing I want to talk about, is that there are many reasons for why this might be the case. Perhaps women want more balanced lives, maybe they don’t desire the level of intensity and amount of work that is involved in rigorous professions. Who the hell does? People who are the top of the social and economic ladder do not get there by sheer luck. Working a high power job requires a tremendous degree of effort, tremendous sacrifice, and often to the detriment of other relationships and goals.

I was reading an article for class that was an ethnography of waiting rooms at hospitals. The paper found that women usually accompany their friends and family, stay for longer, bring things to do, bring snacks, and are generally more engaged and kind in their interactions. This sounded great! I thought, wow, these women are so lucky to be able to spend all this time with their family, to be able to initiate friendships and conversations in somewhere as dismal as a waiting room. They must be so proud to be so strong and supportive, so mature to wait patiently and know that love and strong relationships makes for a more fulfilled life. The paper drew different conclusions. The paper argued that women are oppressed because they spend their time waiting and isn’t this so terribly unfair and evil.

What is the standard for this comparison? The author concluded that men make brief visits, rush out after appointments, and don’t connect to the same depth with the person they’re waiting with, or the others in the waiting area. And this was supposed to be used as evidence that men are so privileged and the dynamics of patriarchy are at play evidenced by who waits longer and who accompanies the ill to the hospital.

Feminism did a curious thing. The effects of which still continually baffle me and make me wonder about the lenses people are using to interpret the world. What feminism did, was not only said women and men should have equal opportunities- fair. But that the standard and level of equality is to only be evaluated on the grounds of the masculine. Women are only equal when they have equal representation in the workplace. Women are only equal when they make the same amount as men. Women are only equal to the degree that they are completely freed from child-rearing and family activities. But if we’re talking about equality, why are we only using these traditionally masculine forms? And it is really not evident why that is.

Why don’t we measure equality by the number of men who are stay at home dad? Why don’t we measure equality by what sex lives longer (which is women, by the way. On average 8 years longer). What about what sex has more profound social relationships and commitments (which is women). Or measured by the depth of connection a parent has with their child (significantly less for men). What about suicide rates? The demographic with the highest suicide rate is older white men. By a long shot.

When we focus so heavily on economic activities, to the exclusive of all other valid and important measures of wellbeing, we risk seriously distorting our view. And people may argue that we measure economic activity and representation in high power positions because those are the roles that tend to organize social structures. Okay, fair. But living in a society with a healthy democracy, with entrenched rights for everyone, with equal opportunity, anti-discrimination policies, is it really so reasonable to assume that lack of representation is only due to discrimination?

Under the aforementioned conditions, there is a high degree of freedom in one’s ability to determine and influence life outcomes. Life is a negotiation between structure and agency. As a sociologist, I see as clearly as anybody the ways in which structures place invisible barriers on people. Structure influences the realm of the possible, but not to the exclusion of agency.

What I have seen emerging since I was young is this tendency to insulate people, to preserve youth and childhood to such an extent that adults resist becoming adults with all their might. Just the other day I read a news article about a 21 year old woman whose emotional support hamster was not permitted on a flight. Just think about that for one moment. A 21 year old women, who could potentially be married, have children, graduated university, has a career, has a partner with obligations to them- this adult woman requires a hamster for emotional support. A hamster for emotional support.

What is it about a hamster that offers more emotional support than a healthy mature relationship, friendship, etc. Do hamsters really offer something that adult relationships, meditation, therapy, and maturity don’t offer? And if it does, what is it, and do we really want to be encouraging this sort of thing?

There is a movement in universities to shut down debates that have the potential to “harm” (emotionally obviously), to provide trigger warnings to sensitive content, and to offer “safe spaces”. Have we forgotten the basic well documented tenets of exposure therapy? Is the university a day care or a place to challenge the bias assumptions one is raised with? Why are people self-infantilizing and rejecting challenge, rejecting knowledge, rejecting the necessity of standing up for oneself?

Being a victim is attractive because it means that you can write off any responsibility. Being a victim means that you are in a state of helplessness, and that structure has completely erased agency. This is not the case. Live authentically, take responsibility, and do the things that you know are good for you. Do that for a day and you will see so clearly that the victim state is a self-induced fiction. We have agency. To varying degree, yes. But we have agency, we have the capacity to influence our environments. We have been doing this for thousands of years.

What I despise about my field is the ways in which there is a victim card for everyone. The way that sociologists seem to refuse to make the distinction between effective and competent leaders and power hungry oppressive leaders. The way that people are reduced and defined by their group identity. It bothers me because I am a woman. From an average household and I have successfully managed to negotiate my position in the university, I am among the top of my class. Despite limitations, I exercise my capacity to be a strong and educated person and I use that discipline to my advantage. Does that make me tyrannical? Does that make me oppressive because I get better grades than my peers? Is stratification under any and all conditions a necessary evil? I’d hope not.

I’d invite everyone to not overlook the ways in which society is functional and balanced. The ways that people in power are there because they work around the clock and make serious sacrifices that you couldn’t imagine. Entertain for a moment that structure does not kill agency. That staying at home and raising children and participating in the community is a greater privilege than sacrificing your life and relations in the name of economic security.

#again I welcome dissent and diasgreement #respond intelligently

5 notes · View notes

d-is-here-to-help · 8 years ago

Text

You are still valid if you have:

Complex post-traumatic stress disorder

(C-PTSD; also known as complex trauma disorder) is a psychological disorder exhibiting features similar to borderline personality disorder (BPD) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), thought to occur as a result of repetitive, prolonged trauma involving harm or abandonment by a caregiver or other interpersonal relationships with an uneven power dynamic. C-PTSD is associated with sexual, emotional or physical abuse or neglect in childhood, intimate partner violence, victims of kidnapping and hostage situations, indentured servants, slavery, sweatshop workers, prisoners of war, bullying, concentration camp survivors, and defectors of cults or cult-like organizations. Situations involving captivity/entrapment (a situation lacking a viable escape route for the victim or a perception of such) can lead to C-PTSD-like symptoms, which include prolonged feelings of terror, worthlessness, helplessness, and deformation of one's identity and sense of self.

Some researchers argue that C-PTSD is distinct from, but similar to PTSD, somatization disorder, dissociative identity disorder, and borderline personality disorder, with the main distinction being that it distorts a person's core identity, especially when prolonged trauma occurs during childhood development. It was first described in 1992 by Judith Herman in her book Trauma & Recovery and an accompanying article. Though mainstream journals have published papers on C-PTSD, the category is not yet adopted by either the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), or in the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Edition (ICD-10). However, it is proposed for the ICD-11, to be finalized in 2018.

The diagnosis of PTSD was originally developed for adults who had suffered from a single event trauma, such as rape, or a traumatic experience during a war. However, the situation for many children is quite different. Children can suffer chronic trauma such as maltreatment, family violence, and a disruption in attachment to their primary caregiver. In many cases, it is the child's caregiver who caused the trauma. The diagnosis of PTSD does not take into account how the developmental stages of children may affect their symptoms and how trauma can affect a child’s development. Currently there is no proper diagnosis for this condition, but the term developmental trauma disorder has been suggested. This developmental form of trauma places children at risk for developing psychiatric and medical disorders.

Repeated traumatization during childhood leads to symptoms that differ from those described for PTSD. Cook and others describe symptoms and behavioural characteristics in seven domains:

Attachment – "problems with relationship boundaries, lack of trust, social isolation, difficulty perceiving and responding to others' emotional states"

Biology – "sensory-motor developmental dysfunction, sensory-integration difficulties, somatization, and increased medical problems"

Affect or emotional regulation – "poor affect regulation, difficulty identifying and expressing emotions and internal states, and difficulties communicating needs, wants, and wishes"

Dissociation – "amnesia, depersonalization, discrete states of consciousness with discrete memories, affect, and functioning, and impaired memory for state-based events"

Behavioural control – "problems with impulse control, aggression, pathological self-soothing, and sleep problems"

Cognition – "difficulty regulating attention, problems with a variety of 'executive functions' such as planning, judgement, initiation, use of materials, and self-monitoring, difficulty processing new information, difficulty focusing and completing tasks, poor object constancy, problems with 'cause-effect' thinking, and language developmental problems such as a gap between receptive and expressive communication abilities."

Self-concept – "fragmented and disconnected autobiographical narrative, disturbed body image, low self-esteem, excessive shame, and negative internal working models of self".

Adults with C-PTSD have sometimes experienced prolonged interpersonal traumatization as children as well as prolonged trauma as adults. This early injury interrupts the development of a robust sense of self and of others. Because physical and emotional pain or neglect was often inflicted by attachment figures such as caregivers or older siblings, these individuals may develop a sense that they are fundamentally flawed and that others cannot be relied upon.

This can become a pervasive way of relating to others in adult life described as insecure attachment. The diagnosis of dissociative disorder and PTSD in the current DSM-IV TR (2000) do not include insecure attachment as a symptom. Individuals with Complex PTSD also demonstrate lasting personality disturbances with a significant risk of revictimization.

Six clusters of symptoms have been suggested for diagnosis of C-PTSD:

alterations in regulation of affect and impulses;

alterations in attention or consciousness;

alterations in self-perception;

alterations in relations with others;

somatization;

alterations in systems of meaning.

Experiences in these areas may include:

Variations in consciousness, including forgetting traumatic events (i.e., psychogenic amnesia), reliving experiences (either in the form of intrusive PTSD symptoms or in ruminative preoccupation), or having episodes of dissociation.

Difficulties regulating emotions, including symptoms such as persistent dysphoria, chronic suicidal preoccupation, self injury, explosive or extremely inhibited anger (may alternate), or compulsive or extremely inhibited sexuality (may alternate).

Changes in self-perception, such as a chronic and pervasive sense of helplessness, paralysis of initiative, shame, guilt, self-blame, a sense of defilement or stigma, and a sense of being completely different from other human beings.

Varied changes in the perception of the perpetrator, such as attributing total power to the perpetrator, becoming preoccupied with the relationship to the perpetrator, including a preoccupation with revenge, idealization or paradoxical gratitude, a sense of a special relationship with the perpetrator or acceptance of the perpetrator's belief system or rationalizations.

Alterations in relations with others, including isolation and withdrawal, persistent distrust, anger and hostility, a repeated search for a rescuer, disruption in intimate relationships and repeated failures of self-protection.

Loss of, or changes in, one's system of meanings, which may include a loss of sustaining faith or a sense of hopelessness and despair.

Loss of a sense of reality accompanied by feelings of terror and confusion (psychosis).

C-PTSD was under consideration for inclusion in the DSM-IV but was not included when the DSM-IV was published in 1994. Neither was it included in the DSM-5. PTSD will continue to be listed as a disorder.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was included in the DSM-III (1980), mainly due to the relatively large numbers of American combat veterans of the Vietnam War who were seeking treatment for the lingering effects of combat stress. In the 1980s, various researchers and clinicians suggested that PTSD might also accurately describe the sequelae of such traumas as child sexual abuse and domestic abuse. However, it was soon suggested that PTSD failed to account for the cluster of symptoms that were often observed in cases of prolonged abuse, particularly that which was perpetrated against children by caregivers during multiple childhood and adolescent developmental stages. Such patients were often extremely difficult to treat with established methods.

PTSD descriptions fail to capture some of the core characteristics of C-PTSD. These elements include captivity, psychological fragmentation, the loss of a sense of safety, trust, and self-worth, as well as the tendency to be revictimized. Most importantly, there is a loss of a coherent sense of self: it is this loss, and the ensuing symptom profile, that most pointedly differentiates C-PTSD from PTSD.

C-PTSD is also characterized by attachment disorder, particularly the pervasive insecure, or disorganized-type attachment. DSM-IV (1994) dissociative disorders and PTSD do not include insecure attachment in their criteria. As a consequence of this aspect of C-PTSD, when some adults with C-PTSD become parents and confront their own children's attachment needs, they may have particular difficulty in responding sensitively especially to their infants' and young children's routine distress—such as during routine separations, despite these parents' best intentions and efforts. Although the great majority of survivors do not abuse others, this difficulty in parenting may have adverse repercussions for their children's social and emotional development if parents with this condition and their children do not receive appropriate treatment.

Thus, a differentiation between the diagnostic category of C-PTSD and that of PTSD has been suggested. C-PTSD better describes the pervasive negative impact of chronic repetitive trauma than does PTSD alone.

C-PTSD also differs from continuous traumatic stress disorder (CTSD), which was introduced into the trauma literature by Gill Straker (1987). It was originally used by South African clinicians to describe the effects of exposure to frequent, high levels of violence usually associated with civil conflict and political repression. The term is also applicable to the effects of exposure to contexts in which gang violence and crime are endemic as well as to the effects of ongoing exposure to life threats in high-risk occupations such as police, fire and emergency services.

Traumatic grief or complicated mourning are conditions where both trauma and grief coincide. There are conceptual links between trauma and bereavement since loss of a loved one is inherently traumatic. If a traumatic event was life-threatening, but did not result in death, then it is more likely that the survivor will experience post-traumatic stress symptoms. If a person dies, and the survivor was close to the person who died, then it is more likely that symptoms of grief will also develop. When the death is of a loved one, and was sudden or violent, then both symptoms often coincide. This is likely in children exposed to community violence.

For C-PTSD to manifest, the violence would occur under conditions of captivity, loss of control and disempowerment, coinciding with the death of a friend or loved one in life-threatening circumstances. This again is most likely for children and stepchildren who experience prolonged domestic or chronic community violence that ultimately results in the death of friends and loved ones. The phenomenon of the increased risk of violence and death of stepchildren is referred to as the Cinderella effect.

C-PTSD may share some symptoms with both PTSD and borderline personality disorder. It may help to understand the intersection of attachment theory with C-PTSD and BPD if one reads the following opinion of Bessel A. van der Kolk together with an understanding drawn from a description of BPD:

Uncontrollable disruptions or distortions of attachment bonds precede the development of post-traumatic stress syndromes. People seek increased attachment in the face of danger. Adults, as well as children, may develop strong emotional ties with people who intermittently harass, beat, and, threaten them. The persistence of these attachment bonds leads to confusion of pain and love. Trauma can be repeated on behavioural, emotional, physiologic, and neuroendocrinologic levels. Repetition on these different levels causes a large variety of individual and social suffering.

However, C-PTSD and BPD have been found by researchers to be completely distinctive disorders with incredibly different features – notably, C-PTSD is not a personality disorder – those who suffer do not fear abandonment, do not have unstable patterns of relations – rather they withdraw and they do not struggle with lack of empathy. There are distinct and notably large differences between Borderline and C-PTSD and while there are some similarities – predominantly in terms of issues with attachment (though this plays out in completely different ways) and trouble regulating strong emotional effect (often feel pain vividly), the disorders are completely different in nature – especially considering that C-PTSD is always a response to trauma rather than a personality disorder. In addition, C-PTSD is not a personality disorder – rather it is often a case of survival reactions to trauma becoming a fundamental aspect of the personality, in response to living with a personality disordered individual.

"While the individuals in the BPD reported many of the symptoms of PTSD and CPTSD, the BPD class was clearly distinct in its endorsement of symptoms unique to BPD. The RR ratios presented in Table 5 revealed that the following symptoms were highly indicative of placement in the BPD rather than the CPTSD class: (1) frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment, (2) unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation, (3) markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self, and (4) impulsiveness. Given the gravity of suicidal and self-injurious behaviors, it is important to note that there were also marked differences in the presence of suicidal and self-injurious behaviors with approximately 50% of individuals in the BPD class reporting this symptom but much fewer and an equivalent number doing so in the CPSD and PTSD classes (14.3 and 16.7%, respectively). The only BPD symptom that individuals in the BPD class did not differ from the CPTSD class was chronic feelings of emptiness, suggesting that in this sample, this symptom is not specific to either BPD or CPTSD and does not discriminate between them."

"Overall, the findings indicate that there are several ways in which Complex PTSD and BPD differ, consistent with the proposed diagnostic formulation of CPTSD. BPD is characterized by fears of abandonment, unstable sense of self, unstable relationships with others, and impulsive and self-harming behaviors. In contrast, in CPTSD as in PTSD, there was little endorsement of items related to instability in self-representation or relationships. Self-concept is likely to be consistently negative and relational difficulties concern mostly avoidance of relationships and sense of alienation."

In addition 25% of those diagnosed with BPD have no known history of childhood neglect or abuse and individuals are six times as likely to develop BPD if they have a relative who was so diagnosed compared to those who do not. One conclusion is that there is a genetic predisposition to BPD unrelated to trauma. Researchers conducting a longitudinal investigation of identical twins found that "genetic factors play a major role in individual differences of borderline personality disorder features in Western society." A 2014 study published in European Journal of Psychotraumatology was able to compare and contrast C-PTSD, PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder and found that it could distinguish between individual cases of each and when it was co-morbid, arguing for a case of separate diagnoses for each. BPD may be confused with C-PTSD by some without proper knowledge of the two conditions because those with BPD also tend to suffer from PTSD or to have some history of trauma.

In Trauma and Recovery, Herman expresses the additional concern that patients who suffer from C-PTSD frequently risk being misunderstood as inherently 'dependent', 'masochistic', or 'self-defeating', comparing this attitude to the historical misdiagnosis of female hysteria However, those who develop C-PTSD do so as a result of the intensity of the trauma bond – in which someone becomes tightly biolo-chemically bound to someone who abuses them (also known as Stockholm Syndrome – seen in cases of kidnapping in which a person falls in love with their captors) and the responses they learned to survive, navigate and deal with the abuse they suffered then become automatic responses, imbedded in their personality over the years of trauma – a normal reaction to an abnormal situation.

The utility of PTSD derived psychotherapies for assisting children with C-PTSD is uncertain. This area of diagnosis and treatment calls for caution in use of the category C-PTSD. Ford and van der Kolk have suggested that C-PTSD may not be as useful a category for diagnosis and treatment of children as a proposed category of developmental trauma disorder (DTD). For DTD to be diagnosed it requires a

'history of exposure to early life developmentally adverse interpersonal trauma such as sexual abuse, physical abuse, violence, traumatic losses of other significant disruption or betrayal of the child's relationships with primary caregivers, which has been postulated as an etiological basis for complex traumatic stress disorders. Diagnosis, treatment planning and outcome are always relational.'

Since C-PTSD or DTD in children is often caused by chronic maltreatment, neglect or abuse in a care-giving relationship the first element of the biopsychosocial system to address is that relationship. This invariably involves some sort of child protection agency. This both widens the range of support that can be given to the child but also the complexity of the situation, since the agency's statutory legal obligations may then need to be enforced.

A number of practical, therapeutic and ethical principles for assessment and intervention have been developed and explored in the field:

Identifying and addressing threats to the child's or family's safety and stability are the first priority.

A relational bridge must be developed to engage, retain and maximize the benefit for the child and caregiver.

Diagnosis, treatment planning and outcome monitoring are always relational (and) strengths based.

All phases of treatment should aim to enhance self-regulation competencies. Determining with whom, when and how to address traumatic memories. Preventing and managing relational discontinuities and psychosocial crises.

For Adults

Herman believes recovery from C-PTSD occurs in three stages:

establishing safety,

remembrance and mourning for what was lost,

reconnecting with community and more broadly, society.

Herman believes recovery can only occur within a healing relationship and only if the survivor is empowered by that relationship. This healing relationship need not be romantic or sexual in the colloquial sense of "relationship", however, and can also include relationships with friends, co-workers, one's relatives or children, and the therapeutic relationship.

Complex trauma means complex reactions and this leads to complex treatments. Hence, treatment for C-PTSD requires a multi-modal approach. It has been suggested that treatment for C-PTSD should differ from treatment for PTSD by focusing on problems that cause more functional impairment than the PTSD symptoms. These problems include emotional dysregulation, dissociation, and interpersonal problems. Six suggested core components of complex trauma treatment include:

Safety

Self-regulation

Self-reflective information processing

Traumatic experiences integration

Relational engagement

Positive affect enhancement

Multiple treatments have been suggested for C-PTSD. Among these treatments are experiential and emotionally focused therapy, internal family systems therapy, sensorimotor psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy (EMDR), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), cognitive behavioral therapy, psychodynamic therapy, family systems therapy and group therapy.

11 notes · View notes

ziracona · 4 years ago

Note

And I hate to do this- So on that thread, not that he's as bad, why do you think Michael is redeemable? (and also Frank) Especially by his main victim? :? I hope that isn't as bad or as judgmental as I think it sounds... - Sleepy (its like 5am here :3 living up to my name i see)

So, these I gave a short and a long answer for under cut, but forgot I’m on mobile and can’t do that. I can tag it “long post” but uhhh, sorry about this. Anyway, thats why Frank comes in two chunks. I wrote it expecting to be able to use a read more. :’-] also ya fine. And I hope you’re in bed 🤣 now. Okay so. Here’s my reasons:

For Michael, to start, Halloween is complicated af. You have to know what timeline people are talking about, because there are like 8+ and Michael has been written as a wildly different character by wildly different content creators, and I would not feel the same ways towards them all. They’re not the same character. When I talk about Michael, unless I’m going on about a specific other film, I mean either H20 canon, or DbD canon, which are in line with each other when it comes to characterization. (This also includes Halloween’s 1 & 2 in the H20 line, and Halloween 1 at least in DbD). In those timelines, Michael has like at best 2% agency and choice in his own life and what he becomes. That’s why I am sympathetic. I still root for Laurie to nail his ass to the wall of course, and everything he has done to hurt someone isn’t okay just because his life is unfair & awful & out of his control, but I still find him a very tragic character. He was canonically suffering violent psychosis his parents refused him treatment for, isolated with a monster as his doctor & only human contact for 15 years from age 6 on, overdosed on medications that when OD’d worsen psychosis symptoms and can cause permanent brain damage, and stuck like that until escaping briefly when he turned 21.

In Halloween canon, Michael tells his parents he hears voices telling him to do bad things like hurt people, but they tell him he is imagining stuff, and ignore his attempts to get help. The voices say they will be quiet, which is what he desperately wants, if he kills his sister Judith. So he does, at age six. Scientifically speaking, that’s literally too young to really have a complete grasp on death and mortality itself, let alone complex ethics. He immediately goes to his parents after doing the deed, so they can do whatever they need to do. Instead of getting him help, he is sentenced to 15 years in a 1960s American sanitorium (hell), until he turns 21 and can be tried for murder as an adult (fucking ridiculous and unfair?? Tried as an adult is for like, upper teens who commit heinous murders. How tf you justify trying a six year old literally too young to really understand murder as an adult for murdering someone??). They give him to Dr. Sam Loomis, a fucking horrible person, who says he spends 8 years trying to help Michael (a fkn lie), but canonically by only a few months of meeting the kid is thoroughly convinced he is evil, the devil or a demon in human form, faking his psychosis and side effect symptoms (trauma induced mutism from killing his sister, onset of catatonia/motion loss symptoms, etc, all of which are common with his disorder & trauma), desperate to kill again, and an evil mastermind doing the devil’s work, and says so. Spends four hours every day accusing Michael as a six year old child on, of planning to do horrible things and faking his illness and being a demon and not a human, and Loomis, from age 6 to 21, is this kid’s only human contact. And the staff knew it and how wrong and disturbed Loomis was, but did nothing. So from age 6 to 21—barring one or two visits from his mom & Laurie before his dad beat 4 year old Laurie for saying Michael’s, who he hated after Judith’s death, name—until she trauma blocked out having had a brother or sister at all, and then both parents died in a car crash—his only human contact in complete isolation was an adult man who told him for four hours a day he was an evil lying demon faking his symptoms and plotting murder and not a human and promised he would kill Michael and stop him, from childhood on, and that was it. He was never given an understanding of what was medically wrong with him, or that anything was at all. He was threatened and abused and kept overdosed on drugs for 15 years since early childhood, and his only understanding of the world taught in that absolute isolation, was that he was a demon who wanted to get out and kill again. And the violent psychosis, telling him if he killed both sisters, they would go away and leave him in peace with no more constant noise. With no normal understanding of the world or people or life like he was owed ever given to him, no understanding at all of what you were going through or were aside from the promise drilled into your head you were a monster who wanted to kill every day for 15 years while drugged up? Like, I’m a firm believe people are responsible for their own actions, but in a case as extreme as that, honestly, how else was that ever going to even be able to end? You forget, as a child. Who you used to be. That’s beyond grooming even, it’s being grown in a lab for the sole purpose of someday walking out, taking a large kitchen knife, and killing Laurie Strode. And it’s tragic. It’s unfair. Halloween is a tragedy, not a horror film. It didn’t have to be that way. He wanted help. He asked for help. Loomis is directly and pretty much solely responsible for the lives lost in 1978. You know he won’t even call Michael “him”? The only human he contact he had since age six on called him “it.” And no one stopped any of that. And even then. Even then, even with all that. With the drugs, and the lab grown killer, and all of it? Michael is pretty much the single least sadistic slasher killer there /is/.

Everyone he kills in Halloween? He kills fast. It’s actually kind of boring if you’re expecting a scary slasher, because there’s no chase until Laurie. He just appears, runs you through, and you die. Very fast. And if there is any emotion expressed towards the act of killing or aftermath, it’s not pleasure or hate or happiness, it’s curiosity, because literally everything is something he wasn’t allowed to experience growing up and just has no practical experience with yet. And on top of all that, he also just doesn’t kill people he doesn’t have to. He kills one man for clothes, kills Annie to re-do Judith’s murder since it didn’t work the first time and he needs both sisters for the voices to stop, and he kills Bob and Lynda becuase they stumble onto where he is & are a threat to success. (This + Judith 15 years prior is all the deaths in Halloween period, btw). Michael routinely only kills his target, and anyone who is a threat to success. Literally doesn’t even jump out to kill Bob or attack until Bob opens the door to the closet he was hiding in, and he has been seen. Walks past a security guard and lets him go in H20 becuase he doesn’t see him, steals keys from a mom with her 4 year old kid and doesn’t even hurt them because they don’t see him really either, steals a knife from an old lady making a sandwich who is one foot away but looking the other direction, so he lets her go. Even with all the possible stakes against him, really, Michael is like, the least cruel and most sympathetic and merciful version of that lab grown killer possible, which can only be a testament to the person he was initially/still somehow has managed to keep faint traces of alive inside.

As for Laurie finding him redeemable, answer is threefold I guess, and I’ll start with the most important. 1: in Halloween canon, Laurie cares for Michael and is incredibly sad about what he turned into and wishes he could be different (once she remembers who he is). That’s established canon, not a choice of mine. In Halloween 2, she tries to talk him down before shooting him, and he hesitates when she says his name and lowers his weapon for a moment. In H20, she talks about him a lot & even asks her boyfriend (a psychologist) if he thinks something so traumatic can happen to someone that they can never recover, bc even though she hasn’t seen him in 20 years, he’s still on her heart. She hesitates to kill him once she has him helpless in the finale, and when he reaches out for her hand, she almost cries and starts to reach back because it’s what she has truly wanted for so long. 2: Michael & Laurie are siblings, and that’s a very important relationship to me. Obviously, there’s lines where you cross, it’s fkn over, but it is special, and I’m weak for it. They were both cheated of the good family life they could have had, and I like characters I care for getting recovery and rehabilitation, and I would like them to be able to recover and have whatever fragments of the lives they wanted which are still possible. And then 3: Laurie is his victim, but they’re also both victims of Loomis, and the system, and her parents, and if she does /wish/ for him to be okay and things to be like they were, which was canon before me, so she does, then I think them finding happiness and her relief and new hope in regained family and him redemption and rehabilitation through the quite literally only person he has /ever/ known who treated him well or like even a human at all & is still living, that’s so good. It’s sweet, and it makes sense. I like broken people putting the pieces together and finding ways to be okay. None of the shit that happened to either of them was okay, and Michael sure did fucking do it, but it’s about as “it’s complicated” as literally possible, and Laurie wants him to be her brother again, and Michael deserves a chance to experience personhood enough to want anything like that again too, and I think it’s sweet. To be able to find happiness and peace and a new life in that rubble. It shouldn’t be possible, because Halloween is a tragedy that never gets a happy ending, no matter how many timelines they create or versions they tell, but I wish it could have one. It needs one. At least one, among all the fated tragedies for those two cruelly cursed siblings. They both had their lives stolen. Michael by Loomis, and Laurie by Michael. And I want them to find those stolen lives again. And if they can do it together, that’s a very odd and unusual set of circumstances for that kind of thing, but it’s a very complete way to tell the story. He tried to kill her, but if she asked him to stop and he stopped, if he himself chose to change on his own, when it really, really mattered—decided that it was what he wanted more than all the things he was before, and she decided that was enough, and they could both have a future as family? I like that. It’s a happy ending stolen back.

Long Frank Answer, in case you /have/ read ILM & thus short answer did not answer your question: So. Again, for me, I always talk about Frank as in the version of him I myself write, and I wrote ILM before the archives retcon, and also just ignore them because they’re usually dumb and blatantly contradict well established and longstanding canon. Even then, I usually don’t like Frank though—didn’t like him when I started writing ILM. But Frank has very little established canon character. All there is for sure is he was a foster kid that went through some bad stuff, he met Julie and changed his mind about desperately trying to be homed somewhere other than with Clive bc he liked Julie a lot, he met Susie and Joey, they became a gang chilling in Ormond’s abandoned lodge, then tried to rob a store Joey was fired from, were surprised by a cleaner who grabbed Julie, and Frank impulse stabbed him, freaked, and ordered the others to finish it with him and be in it together. Then before they’d even really finished burying the body, they got snagged. That leaves a whole lot of personality and thoughts and motivations and future choices and person wildly undetermined. Writing, sometimes characters just do their own thing completely out of my control, and I have to adapt. Frank chose not to kill Meg at the end of Tenacity, Adrenaline, & Grit, which surprised me, because he’d been nothing but a dipshit asshole bastard till one minute ago, but I knew it was because he recognized what she’d tried to do at great pain to herself because she wouldn’t bow down and die, and he connected/empathized or sympathized on some level. He also couldn’t go through with killing Quentin immediately after being helped by him in Distortion/Iron Maiden. Neither was like, planned. It’s just who the character was. I was frustrated. I did not want to like or feel sympathy for Frank at all. Then in The Lost, Jeff just fkn hijacked the whole plot and added 20 pages not in the outline because he wanted to be kind to Frank & it’s not like I can stop characters when they do whatever they do. And while writing it, I got to know that the version of Frank Morrison in the world I was writing—which is always the version I refer to/think of him as & write now myself—was not somebody past saving. He’s a piece of shit and he’s done fucked up and inexcusable stuff, and he pays for it. In many ways, Frank gets away with a lot over the course of ILM, but it’s always because characters choose on their own to forgive him, not because they or he doesn’t think it was fucked. And Frank suffers—a lot—for his choices, and has to live through appropriate and large amounts of regret and remorse about stuff he did before the end. He gets the chance to make better choices several times, and mostly he doesn’t. He continues to fuck up. But right near the end, he makes a couple good decisions when it’s down to the wire, sees where his bad choices got him and what he has to live with, and then he does live with it. He almost dies, and then ends up falling on Jeff’s mercy, which he knows he doesn’t deserve and doesn’t expect to get, for a last chance to make it, and because Jeff is an ungodly kind and forgiving soul, he makes it.

Frank isn’t a good person, and he does a lot of stuff that isn’t remotely okay or justified or excused, but he /is/ a kid—the upper end of it, but he’s not a full grown adult. He has every reason to believe nothing of himself or others, a fucked up childhood and life which isn’t his fault, and the Entity got all four Legion kids before they’d even had time to process the one and only violent crime they did (which was unplanned), and it is historically running a PHD in psychological warfare vs everyone. Absolutely none of that excuses or justifies him, but it is an explanation for some of it that is not as bad as say, doing that shit for fun or cruelty or hate or what have you, which makes him a bad person, but one with a lot more humanity left than say, Kenneth. Who is at -100 or something. If he’s still got a lot of humanity left, that means he could be redeemed, and he eventually chooses that path for himself and hits the appropriate “I did something horrible. Fuck. It was really bad. I should not have done it.” “I am really sorry I did this. I feel awful. I’m sorry.” “I cant change it, but I can try to do better and make whatever reparations I can.” “I want to be better, and I am going to try.” necessary stages of actually trying to improve. So, I like him. He did a lot of really awful shit that wasn’t okay, but he was never without sympathetic elements. He does love his friends and his girlfriend, he is a good boyfriend to Julie and selfless towards her and his crew (overall anyway—has even risked death for them very willingly, even the one who was fighting with/kinda hated him), will keep his word in deals and has some semblance of both sympathy and honor, feels guilt, is a kid, did not choose this life but was rather catapulted into it and too weak to climb out once he landed in the mud. All of that together makes him someone I feel sympathy towards and find quite redeemable, so long as he will decide he wants that, which, in ILM, he does. If you just meant Frank in general then idk how to answer because there’s not much established Frank period it’s kinda a shell like all original dead by daylight characters, and I have no thoughts on it by itself because it’s not a whole person, and so I really only think of Frank as ILM verse Frank now.

#ask #sleepy #hope this is coherant. I love answering but I’m also on vacation trip rn so I’m not proofreading & u get what u get 🤣 adds flavor #in living memory (fic)#in living memory #spoilers #ILM spoilers #Halloween #dead by daylight #long post #Michel is not the villain of Halloween: he and Laurie are both the victims & it’s a fkn Greek tragedy #they both deserved so much more than the lives they were thrown into #: (#sad now just thinkin bout it

13 notes · View notes

beet-rootesoupevodkabanya · 8 years ago

Text

Post-apocalypse military AU. Teen flashback 1.

As I promised to dear Feli. 😘✨ It’s here. And it’ll have some parts. (Thanx to shit in one certain manga I wrote much less then I wanted during this time.😒) Sentopitazubagu is St.Petersburg in Japanese. (Sound funny.😆) **************************** When Yuuri woke up everything from yesterday felt like a weird dream. Breakdown, broken door, hot bath, naked General in his shower, waking up at night, painkillers and finally Snow King sleeping in his arms. Definitely dream. He unwillingly opened eyes. Splinters of Northern sky stared at him in a distance of breath. And still not properly awaken boy tossed back, nearly falling from the bed. Cold fingers reached dark silky hair in calming caress: - Don't worry, Yuuri. We won't be late. [Then... It's not a dream.. And it means we're going to the archive. But what's more important...] - Do U feel better now, sir? - boy from Safe Zone unsurely reached for beautiful face in front of him but stopped a centimeter before, clumsily dropping a hand on the pillow. Anxiety did it's thing. Again. But General Snow King moved closer. Porcelain cheek laid on boys fingers: - Much better. Because of U. ********************** Honestly archive was in complete mess. Since Georgi moved to another Military Zone, neither Yasha nor Lilichka properly fixed it. And Snow King simply had no time for it. Yuuri reached for the least dusty pack of documents. Yes, it was the right one. He looked it through. Well... Medical card, characterization... - Oh, here it is sir! - he finally found what they were searching for. - Look. At the age of 12 I went through the virus. Survivors from Kyushu were evacuated into several cities out of fear of nuclear catastrophe on our energy system. Me and my family were sent to the Saint Petersburg. Yuuri narrowed brows visibly upset: - It's your hometown... But still I remember nothing. Only some...dreams. He raised a head looking into icy-blue eyes: - But why do U want to know, sir. Expression of Northern sky was hard to read. Victor stepped closer and pulled Yuuri into a hug: - When U remember something, promise to tell me, ok? Leaning to his chest Private Katsuki had no idea how to ask why the voice of his commander is so full of sadness. ************************* White nights. Or better to say whitish. Gray, sticky mist instead of proper darkness. Maybe if it wasn't his hometown, he'd like this season more. Maybe... Sixteen years old High Officer of United Army aimlessly wonders through grey lightning. It's his first day-off since the beginning of the catastrophe. Everything has changed. Changed so much now it's hard to believe some years ago the world was so different. Curfew time past long ago. And streets are almost empty. Only military patrol and emergency servicemen rush here and there. War began at the same time with epidemic. Rather unexpected but still familiar for this place... War not between countries but between citizens. Right inside the territory. With no hope to stop it or make a peace agreement. Silver-haired teen leans to the river fence and takes out a cigarette. After all, who cares... Who ever cared?... Shadow. Between houses in fifty meters. He doesn't even realize how exactly he sneaked up close, preparing a gun. It's a pure habit. Of last four years. When healthy kids had no choice but to fight just like adults. Sometimes they were even more effective... Prey has nowhere to hide and there's no place to run away unnoticed. Silver shadow soundlessly appears right behind the perpetrator. And stops in some kind of disappointment. Instead of violator there stays a foreign kid in hospital patient outfit. Obviously from that very bunch of Asian survivors which were brought here a couple of weeks ago. It'll be a huge luck if he speaks English... - Hey, boy?.. Honestly Victor expected kid to be scared or try to run away. But non of that happens. He turns to the voice. Exhausted face, dark circles around eyes, feverish spots on cheeks. He obviously is suffering from recovering syndrome. But... What a hell is he doing here?... It's prohibited for civilians to be outside at this time. Not to mention in such condition he'd better stay in bed. - Boy, do U speak English? - [if he doesn't the situation will turn out a bit difficult] - Why did U run away? For a minute foreign patient stares at silver-haired Officer without even blinking. Honey sparkles of amusement boil in black depth of his eyes. Or maybe it's just fever... - Kami... Sama... - kid's whisper is almost inaudible. [Kami-sama?.. "God" in Japanese, right?.. Is he this scared? Of course he is...] Child makes a step forward and shakes nearly collapsing. Victor gets on his knees holding his shoulders. Ok, it's easy to bring him back but... What if kid ran away from some violence? Officer narrows eyes. He never really liked kids but abusers he simply hated. - Kid, listen up. I'll help. I know what hospital U are from - he points at the marker on clothing - But before I take U there, tell me the reason why did U run away. Did someone hurt U? Finally foreigner smiles, waving head: - No. They all are kind. Mom and dad are with me. And onee-san. [Well... At least he can speak English. Although fever obviously makes things shadowed for him. Oneesan - what is it?.. The name of the toy?...] -But why did U run away? - Victor asks it not really expecting for an answer anymore. Seems like illness did it's thing. Black lashes shiver in efforts to stay awake but kid obviously is right between collapsing and falling asleep. Young Officer raises him on his arms: - Ok, I'll bring U to doctors where your family is. He's obviously in fever. Small body is burning. For a second it seems to Hight Officer (who is used to drag on his shoulders lots of armor and wounded teammates) boy doesn't have any weight at all: - U can sleep. I'll take U there. Small frame leans to his uniform tighter, twinning arms round his neck. And buries face into his collarbone with an amused sigh. For a second Victor freezes. Is this kid sleeping already? What does he dream about? Parents? - I was searching for my Kami-sama. - Kid's voice is weak but still weirdly pleased. - My Kami-sama... Lives. Here. Kami of Ice and Snow... He opens eyes. In shadowed, sleepy darkness play some sneaky lights. Splinters of northern sky stare into black abyss. Puzzled almost to helplessness. [Kami? In Piter? Seems like kid doesn't even realize he's countless kilometers far from his land.] - Well... Try to get better soon and ask your mom and dad to go to look at your Kami's shrine with U... [What else to say?.. I can't just say half-conscious child: "Hello. It's Piter. Epidemic. War. And Apocalypse."] Boy just happily snorts and leans tighter. Hand softly touches silver locks of Victor's ponytail: - Shrine is here. In your Sentopitazubagu. And I found U. Very inopportunely young Officer realizes that in fact he's not so much older then this child. Not more then four - five years. [And what on the Earth is that Sen-to-p-something?!!] Boy already curled into a sleepy ball in his arms. Then, already with closed eyes, reaches for Victor's face, cupping his cheek with plain, innocent caress: - My Yuki no Kami-sama. And of course on this phrase boy dozes off. Returning sleeping kid to nurses, Victor briefly explains where he found him. Of course it caused a complete mess and lots of begging him never tell anyone about this story. Elsewise hospital stuff could be punished for being unreliable. Victor sloppily nods. Not like his mind is somewhere far away. He is just... Confused. Tight embrace, caress of hair (God! He always hated to death when someone touched his hair. Even if it was a friend.) and this weird warm feeling on cheek... But people don't do such things in real life, right? If exists only in sentimental books and movies. And real people are cruel. They always quarrel and fight each other. The most decent ones fight verbally. Like Yasha and Lilichka. Others... Others do it physically as well. Although what's it all about?... Kid just slept and saw a dream. That's all. No need to overthink. It's not like the world around can be different from what was already seen... Young Officer leans to the fence near Neva. He walked back here unintentionally, being caught up in thoughts. He moves silver lock away from eyes and perplexingly realizes his face is wet... ************************** At night he decided to visit hospital next day and make sure that kid survived. But in the morning emergency task happened. Silver-haired officer returned to his city only in two weeks. With more wounds, higher rank and dead teammates. When he was able to visit hospital, foreign survivors were already sent back home.

#have fun dear feli!😉😘✨#some statements about Vitenka will be clear in next parts #hell...I wonder how many sloppy-assed mistake I made again😅#I need a tag for this before I lost some parts.😅

3 notes · View notes