#it's not a personal nor a moral failure to be unhealthy and i wish more people knew that

[anonymouslyangsty]

Okay so I adore Kazuichi Soda, but GOD do I feel like his character is wasted somewhat in game??? I really wish he had more of an ark

(Warning, I’m going to ramble like a himbo about my Sodapop son below. It’s...way to long and has spoilers)

So, Kaz’s whole character backstory is that he was a nerdy, shy kid who got pushed around by his ‘friends’. He got in trouble for helping a friend cheat on a test, but he wasn’t upset when said friend threw him under the bus. He only got upset when that friend stopped talking to him after, which in turn encouraged him to distrust others and change his behavior and appearance to appear tough.

What I get from this is that Kaz puts on a fragile act to look tough, has a hard time trusting others, and has rather low self esteem. He acts like a punk, but the second someone attacks him, verbally or otherwise, he crumbles and cowers. 

That all being said, I don’t feel that these traits are properly handled or addressed in the game

Firstly, the whole Sonia obsession. I think it makes sense from a few perspectives. In one option, Soda could see Sonia, being a princess, as above ‘normal’ people, thus making her an object of his affections. Option B is that he doesn’t REALLY obsess with Sonia that hard, but because he wants to look cool, he pretends to like her so he can fit in with what he thinks dudes are like. 

Whatever option we go with, it’s clear that Soda has a very shallow ‘love’ for Sonia, only really liking her for her title and appearance. Whenever she expresses the darker sides of her personality (love of the occult and serial killers), Kaz always tries to divert attention from or ignore it. He doesn’t love her as a person, but as a figure. 

The shallowness of his love is coupled with her total devotion to her. Kaz makes the exact same mistake he did with his friend: he trusts Sonia irrationally, incapable of seeing any fault in her whatsoever. So, whenever she’s put into question, he jumps at her aid, trusting her regardless of any evidence. 

This also means that he’s incapable of seeing how uninterested she is in him. She never bluntly says it, but it’s clear that Sonia, at the very least, vaguely dislikes Kaz. She straight up hopes that he’s the killer in chapter 4.

But again, just like with his friend, Kaz brushes it off as nothing. Sonia could do anything to him but, as long as he has her ‘companionship’ (or the illusion of it), he’s fine. This is clearly a terribly unhealthy mentality for a relationship, as Sonia gets idolized to an uncomfortable degree and Soda leaves himself open to any level of abuse as long as he thinks he’s accepted.

Kaz is repeating the same mistake from his backstory, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The bad part is the fact that it’s never addressed.

Sonia never tells Soda to stop, nor does anyone ever highlight the fact that Soda doesn’t really love her. He is constantly following her, but probably couldn’t say 10 things about her personality. If that WAS addressed, it could be used to show Soda that he isn’t going to make connections to people by keeping up his “cool, thirsty bro” persona, but instead by being genuine and kind, which is more align with his true personality. Honestly, I was expecting this to happen after chapter 4 but nope.

Another option, darker this time, is that Soda could find himself betrayed again. It would makes sense thematically; Kaz repeats the same mistake of blind trust, and is thus betrayed again. Maybe Sonia tries to kill someone, betraying the ideal pedestal Kaz places her on. Maybe she frames HIM for murder in an attempt to save Gundham.

Slight tangent here, but I really like the idea of a worst case scenario where Soda’s failure to learn from the past gets him killed (TLDR for the tangent, as if this whole thing doesn’t need a TLDR: Sonia and Kaz pull a DR1 first murder, but Kaz legit acts in self defense).

 Let’s say that, instead of the funhouse, chapter 4 gives motivation videos regarding everyone’s home. Of course, Sonia’s is about how her kingdom is falling into shambles. Extremely stressed, she locks herself in her room for several days. She eventually decides that, to save her kingdom, she has to sacrifice everything, even her morality. She decides to kill.

So, Sonia goes after the easiest target: Soda. Because of his blind faith in her, Soda wouldn’t hesitate to do whatever she asked. So Sonia asks him to meet her in some secluded area, perhaps the abandoned warehouse from chapter 1, sometime late at night.

Soda agrees to this blindly because he can’t EVER believe that Miss Sonia would ever do wrong. However, when he arrives, she attacks him, perhaps stabbing him in the shoulder. I know this is probably slightly underestimating Sonia, as she is trained in weaponry and could probably kill Kaz in one blow, but let’s say she’s so distressed that she doesn’t fatally would him.

Of course, there’s a struggle because, as much as Kaz obsesses over her, he’s not going to let Sonia murder him. She eventually backs him into a corner but, before she can kill him, he knocks her out with a wrench or something (he’s already established to carry one around because it comforts him, so it makes sense that he’d have it)

So now Kaz is alone, bleeding in an abandoned building with an unconscious woman at his feet. That would be a good point to wake everyone up and say what happens, but here’s where Kaz’s personality comes to bite him again. He still has faith in Sonia despite everything, unable to see her faults despite her having literally tried to kill him

So, his first priority is covering up HER crime. He hides the evidence of the attack as best as he can (which probably isn’t well given his panic and his wound). Then, he takes Sonia and carries her back to her room. He probably ties her up so she doesn’t her anyone else or herself when she wakes up. 

The next morning, Sonia isn’t at breakfast. Given that she’d locked herself in her room for several days, it wouldn’t be suspicious. Not wanting her to stay tied up, Soda offers to take breakfast to her. Once there, he wants to talk to her and calm her down, before letting her go and never telling anyone what happened.

However, you can’t just knock someone over the head and think they’re fine. That kind of kills people, and Soda soon learns that. When he gets into Sonia’s room, he finds her still tied up, dead.

Kaz is a coward, but is shown to be kind at heard. So, while I don’t think he’d be brave enough to confess, I don’t think he’d be willing to kill everyone else. Perhaps he’d try to kill himself before the trial to spare himself from execution. However, Nagito stops him. Nagito convinces Soda to cling onto the hope that he ISN’T the killer, and instead someone came to Sonia afterwards and killed her. It’s farfetched, but given his mental state, Kaz would buy it.

This all creates something I’ve always wanted in DR: an innocent blackened. Soda acted in self defense and had no intention to kill. In the trial, he wouldn’t be hiding info in an attempt to trick everyone, but in misplaced hope that he ISN’T the killer. 

Not only that, but this outcome really highlights the error of Soda’s mentality. Because he so blindly trusted Sonia, he was easily tricked by her. Because his self esteem is so bad, he doesn’t even get mad when she tries to kill him, instead hiding HER crime. Perhaps, if he’d gotten upset and ratted her out, she could’ve gotten some kind of medical attention and been saved. Instead, Kaz bent over backwards for her, leading to their deaths.

That was a long tangent, but the point is, I want Kaz’s failure to learn from past mistakes to be addressed, either by him growing past it or being punished for it. Nether happens though. The Sonia obsession continues throughout the ENTIRE game, with it never being addressed as a problem. It’s really strange thematically and character wise, as addressing it could’ve given both characters good development.

Moving on from Sonia somewhat, I HATE Kaz’s character ark, as he doesn’t evolve, but devolves. The source of Kaz’s problems is lis low self esteem. If he cared about himself more, he wouldn’t have accepted poor treatment from his friends in exchange for their companionship. He wouldn’t have changed his appearance and personality because he thought he was unlikable and boring.

Despite that however, in the end, the lesson he learns is to trust people again. That’s not a BAD lesson, but it doesn’t solve the problem. His self esteem is still nearly nothing; by once again falling into the idea that he has to trust his friends nonmatter what, he’s setting himself up to be used again (I’m not saying anyone in the DR2 cast WOULD do that, but the possibility remains.)

By trusting again without gaining self esteem, Kaz somewhat goes pack to step one. His ark really shoud have been about trusting and loving HIMSELF before he trusts and loves others. Kaz needs to realize that he doesn’t need to put on a tough act to make friends, as anyone who requires a tough act to like him isn’t his friend at all. He needs to realize that he deserves good treatment, and someone being your friend doesn’t justify cruel behavior towards you. 

But! He never learns that!!! He just goes right back to trusting without considering his self worth. That...really isn’t healthy and I wish it was addressed in his ark.

Another thing: why doesn’t Kaz have any dead friends? The entire surviving DR2 cast has someone who they were close to that died, Akane and Nekomaru, Fuyu and Peko, Hajime and Chiaki, Sonia and Gundham. It’s strange that everyone BUT Kaz has a close relationship with someone who dies in game.

Why not make Kaz friends with Mikan? I feel like they have a bit in canon, with both being anxious and prone to being bullied. I feel like a friendship between those two could be used to show Kaz’s more genuine personality. It’d be a chance to show that he isn’t CONSTANTLY thirsty over girls, that he can talk to Mikan without a hint of lust. Instead, they could just be friends, finding comfort in the fact that there’s someone else who’s just as terrified as they are.

Also, this relationship could be used to both mess with Kaz AND make another parallel to DR1. Make Mikan frame Kaz for the killing, just like Celeste with Hiro. This would not only be super interesting, but also a MASSIVE blow to Kaz’s ability to trust, which is already terrible. Also again, I just feel like Kaz’s anxiety is used for comic relief too often. I want this boy to straight up have a panic attack in trial. Destroy him with fear. 

So uh, yeah. I feel like Kaz’s depth is sacrificed for the sake of comic relief. He could’ve been so much more, but he isn’t and it’s a shame. Also, if you read this whole thing, then you must be just as obsessed with Kaz as I am. So, send me some good Kaz fics! It is SO HARD to find a fic that focuses on Kaz instead of Nagito. Do it.

[mbti-notes]

(1/8) Yayy, I love Fleabag and I love your blog and everything you write, so I hope you're up for a discussion of your typings (and I hope all the asks come through). Agree about Fleabag, the Godmother and Harry's (his frequent breakups with Fleabag seemed INFJ door slams, but his endgame points to Si) typings. Boo and Fleabag seemed to have been the sort of BFFs who matched because their personalities were quite similar... What made you conclude ESFP rather than ENFP? Same goes for Martin...

Boo’s interests are all concrete, her thinking is always immediate and short-term, Ni grip was apparent in her hasty death.

Same goes for Martin. While I see signs of tertiary Fe in his deliberate manipulation of Claire and pleasure at bringing Fleabag down, and also the overall recklessness of unhealthy EPs, I couldn’t be sure whether he was Se or Ne dom.

I see no evidence of dominant Ne nor inferior Si but many vulgarities and desires that are indicative of unhealthy Se.

What about the Bank Manager? My memory of series one is fuzzy, but he makes an effort to work things out with Fleabag (and women in general) even if he judges too quickly, which could point at aux/tert Te-Fi, I guess.

He is honest and straightforward, no pretension, but severely limited in his perspective. His moral reasoning ability is rather rudimentary, which makes F unlikely. His life is in a deep rut and he is drawn to Fleabag because she is his opposite and helps spark his lower function development. She comes to symbolize the key to understanding his failures and frustrations (both in terms of how he treats women and his lack of function development), therefore, helping her succeed is also helping himself find his own way. He’s reconciling who he is by reckoning with his past mistakes through Fleabag.

The Father clearly struggles with expressing his feelings. He wants to communicate better with Fleabag, but he understands and prefers Claire (a T), so probably IxTx, perhaps Ti-Fe if we consider the main issues presented in the story plus the fact that he quickly fell for Godmother, a Fe dom? I’d like to know your reasoning for him. Anyway, I’d typed Claire and the Priest as ISTJ and ENFJ respectively, and these ones I was sure to have gotten right. xSTJ was clear for Claire, and episode 203 was the one that cemented her as ISTJ for me. She is constantly anxious and full of routines and rituals and micromanages everything, from actions to looks to even jokes, implying a lot of overthinking (I); she clashes with Fleabag because she’s insecure about the possibility of not being as interesting and funny as Fleabag (tertiary Fi). Also, she tries to pretend that she enjoyed the night, that her marriage is going well and that she thinks Fleabag kissed Martin rather than the opposite because of Si’s need to maintain security and stability and not lose what she’s conquered. By accepting her individuality, her feelings and the possibility of something better for herself, she takes action to improve her life, which implied much needed extraverted development. Also, most ESTJs I’ve met, despite being control freaks privately, are more adaptable and relaxed as well, especially in public (higher Te-Ne).

The show centers around Fleabag’s dysfunction. In Si grip, Fleabag tries to pinpoint Boo’s death (and her own hand in causing it) as the “point of origin” but her problems go far deeper than that, all the way back to her family relationships. Everyone in the family is equally messed up despite appearances. The show doesn’t go very far into the historical causes of their collective dysfunction, but it does a good job of illustrating the dysfunctional patterns as they exist in the present. The characters are largely products of old family patterns, therefore, it’s hard to understand each member individually without the context of their collective family dynamic.

A very common family dynamic involves projecting all of the family’s history of dysfunction onto the “weakest link”, aka, the black sheep. The black sheep is usually “chosen” according to their so-called inferiority for failing to live up to the family’s unspoken values, then they are routinely criticized and shamed for being something that is perceived as contrary to the family’s survival and well-being. Over time, this dynamic places an unspoken duty/expectation onto the black sheep, namely that they should always be “the one that ruins everything” whenever the family requires a scapegoat to deflect responsibility for dysfunctional behavior. Fleabag is obviously the black sheep, so everyone uses her as the punchline (for easing tension), the punching bag (for displacing their frustration), and the punch down (for a cheap win during power struggles).

As a defense mechanism, Fleabag believes that she is actually the superior member of the family because she’s “clever” enough to see through people’s fakery or hypocrisy. Despite the concrete proof of her own life being a total mess, she likes to think of herself as being more self-aware than others, i.e., she implicitly blames her life failures on the fact that she can’t fake it or lie to herself like everyone else. However, she doesn’t realize that playing the black sheep role is her form of self-deception. She is deeply caught up in a logical contradiction of knowing she is less than but also believing herself better than, and we see this over and over again in her asides to the audience. By exercising crude power in exposing other people’s fakery, she doesn’t have to look at her own and expose herself, and this plays perfectly into the family pattern that always ends up ricocheting back onto her. Whenever she exposes anything resembling the truth of the family’s dysfunction, regardless of whether she does it kindly or maliciously, she is roundly blamed for “acting out”, being “cruel”, “screwing up”, “ruining everything”, etc etc. The family immediately comes together to activate the scapegoating pattern and, in the end, nothing changes and the pattern repeats the next time they get together. Her twisted way of “caring” for her family is to play the black sheep, and their twisted way of “bonding” is to collectively reinforce their status as not the black sheep.

When people treat you like a black sheep long enough, you believe it and it becomes your identity, and playing this role so well leads her to blow up all of her relationships outside of the family. In accumulating many failed relationships, it’s very easy to slide into settling for less or settling for what you think you deserve, and she has been trained over a lifetime to feel less than deserving. As a defense mechanism, she’s romantically attracted to people who aren’t capable of knowing who she really is, which in turn gives her justification for blowing up each relationship as they are always shallow and meaningless anyway. But this automatic and destructive pattern hits rock bottom when she destroys the only person who’s managed to really know her. She then gradually becomes more aware that she’s repeating unconscious conditioning and could perhaps choose otherwise, but ingrained patterns are hard to change without help and guidance, which eventually invites the influence of the priest.

You might think that their father bears the brunt of the blame for the family being so dysfunctional, but he has plenty of his own unresolved issues that make him more like a child than a parent. The show does not offer any explanation for him but everyone has a history. It seems that he has always been emotionally absent and socially inept in that he allowed their mother to do all of the parenting and caregiving. He is not aggressive, obsessive, or controlling as you would expect for unhealthy TJs, rather, he is detached, distant, avoidant, and indifferent. When you talk to him face-to-face, there is some natural warmth there, but once you are out of his sight, you are out of his mind. You know that he loves you in his way, you know that he tries to empathize, but you also know that he utterly fails to understand anything about you no matter how hard either side tries to bridge the gap. It’s hard to fault him for what is clearly a “disability”? Because of his ineptitude, he traps himself in a codependent relationship with his shadow opposite type, a narcissistic person who calls all the shots in the relationship so that he never has to lift a finger, i.e., he never ever has to bear moral responsibility for anything, and taken to an absurd conclusion, he lives in a pitiful state of learned helplessness. You never have to feel bad if you never do anything, right? Wrong, he is still guilty of sins of omission, and for that he’s never able to truly be at ease no matter what he does to shed away every difficulty. Ideally, a good stepmom takes care of the step-kids, but he was not lucky enough to snag one, so he must accede to the bad stepmom’s judgment or else, heaven forbid, he loses his easy life by having to take responsibility for the girls on his own.

Unhealthy TPs need uptight Js to help them keep life in order, but they often prefer Ps for their amusing company. The father does not “prefer” Claire for what/who she is, rather, he merely appreciates that she doesn’t make any trouble for him, which he wants to believe absolves him of blame. He can say, “See, I have one good daughter, so it’s not my fault that the other one is bad”. There are many parallels between Claire and her father in how they approach relationships very passively and helplessly. Deep down, his heart actually prefers Fleabag for the fact that she more closely resembles her mother and the fact that she is braver than him and challenges him (to be better). He wishes to have a better relationship with her, similar to what he must’ve had with her mother, but he’s unfortunately incapable of containing the dysfunction that bad parenting and unresolved grief has wrought upon her.

You say that Claire should be more flexible if tertiary Ne, but why would you expect her to have any healthy functions? She clearly suffers inferior grip quite often and thus cannot use any of her functions optimally. Every SJ with unhealthy Si-Ne uses micromanagement of routines/rituals as a crutch, so this is true for both dominant and auxiliary Si - your claim here only proves SJ. She’s just as fucked up as Fleabag is, only she is better at repressing her feelings, and for this alone, ISTJ is very unlikely. ISTJs are introverts and they prefer to give up and be at peace rather than double and triple down on stupid behavior in the manner that Claire often does. Her main problem in life is that everything she does to “manage” situations results in her betraying herself in some way, which is strongly indicative of infantile Fi. I disagree that stubbornness is her fatal flaw ala Si-Fi loop; if that were the case, she’d be more than happy to give up everything to Fi loop and disappear into the background. She would also never ever go near Fleabag nor trust her with anything due to the fact that she has already encountered countless past experiences of Fleabag blowing up situations in awful and unpredictable ways. ISTJs are at their least forgiving and never forget whenever it comes to delegating important tasks.

I argue that what gets Claire truly upset is not being unprepared for “all negative possibilities in the abstract” but rather the possibility of LOSING FACE, i.e., being publicly humiliated and exposed as the uncool simpering hypocrite that she is, which is indicative of deep-seated fear of Fi (she envies Fleabag for her “cool” factor for this reason). Unhealthy Te doms, falling apart internally, are still capable of maintaining functionality in external life far longer than other types. She suffers from serious grip problems but still manages to perform her duties at home and at work, which simply wouldn’t be possible for Ne grip. With Fi grip, she instantly switches to very ugly self-pity and irrationally self-protective behavior when threatened by anything. Her instinct upon feeling the vulnerability of exposure is to go on and on and on about how “successful” she is, which usually includes a few rounds of punching down at everyone in an attempt to disown her bad decision making. ISTJs are rarely capable of bullshitting themselves to that extreme; they are more likely to react with humility and even resignation when presented with incontrovertible proof of their failures (see: Bank Manager).

Claire was probably expected to be “the responsible one” (aka elder/caregiver sibling archetype) because there was no one else to take responsibility. However, at this point in her life, she has achieved enough career success to be independent from the family. The fact that she can’t help herself from enacting her old role speaks to the lack of self-insight that is characteristic of inferior Fi, i.e., as much as she complains about hating the pressures and headaches of being “the responsible one”, she unconsciously LOVES it because it grants her a superior position in the family. She’s not willing to give up the pain because she’s not willing to give up the payoff, and this internal love-hate contradiction is what makes her relationship with Fleabag dysfunctional despite the love and affection they have for each other. I don’t think ISTJs are able to bear such obvious internal contradiction and still manage to claim integrity. ISTJs find it much more painful, if not impossible, to pretend and posture for the sake of appearances, because they are supremely stubborn people when it comes to preserving their subjective sense of integrity. By contrast, inferior Fi makes it very easy to ignore subjective integrity and choose destructive methods of obtaining feelings of power and superiority, hence she ends up betraying her own well-being all the time.

As for the Priest, we both agree on him being a Fe dom. What made me choose Ni rather than Si is that he admitted to have been quite a different person in the past by alluding to his many sexual experiences, probably a hint of Se as well. But then he met God and everything took a 180 for him (N, not S), implying that he was uncomfortably adrift for a while and needed a sense of meaning and a clear vision of his path ahead to feel whole (Ni). Also, PWB has said that Fleabag was drawn to the Priest because he has an established sense of purpose, which she’s been looking for, which highlights their P vs J and Ne vs Ni differences. You could argue that he was drawn to her because of tertiary Ne, but I don’t see signs of Si’s typical grounded outlook (he uses a lot of abstractions to explain his ideas) or typical adherence to traditions (the path to his faith wasn’t primarily through this motivation as it happens to many) or typical narrow-mindedness (quite the opposite, he used to be quite open to experiences due to Fe+Se). Oh, and I forgot to mention, the Priest can read and understand Fleabag so well that he even gets to enter her internal world and listen to her personal thoughts. To be able to understand people with this level of depth is, of course, more natural for xNFJs rather than xSFJs, who help people on a more practical level (Fe+Ni v Fe+Si).

I think your understanding of Si is still quite stereotypical. ESFJs have a common pattern of using Ne to “find themselves” only to end up lost because what they’re really doing is Ne loop. ESFJs tend to grow up feeling very pressured to be rule abiders and it is common for them to go through a rebellious stage a bit later in life compared to other types, once the pressure finally reaches a breaking point. After swinging from the painful oppression of “rule observant” behavior in youth to the painful failures of “rule breaking” behavior in young adulthood, they eventually boomerang back to old touchstones, i.e., they ground themselves by rediscovering comfort in the known. IIRC, the priest felt lost and eventually revisited religion for guidance, he made the beliefs his own rather than blindly following dogma, and he chose to commit his life to doing good because HE genuinely wanted to, not because family/society told him to. A healthy ESFJ establishes a stronger sense of self once they reconcile with the past and make “rule following” more palatable by turning it into a personal choice (rather than feeling obligated to constantly self-sacrifice). I disagree that he “transformed” from one person into a completely different one, I think it’s more accurate to say that he had no idea who he was and got increasingly lost until he discovered himself by looking backward and making sense of his past experience. 

Religion is an abstract concept, there’s no avoiding abstract discussions about religious beliefs when you’re debating a non-believer, especially when that non-believer is Ne dom. Ne is tertiary and people often use tertiary functions for relief, therefore, ESFJs tend to enjoy abstract discussions, especially of the Ne variety that is full of humor and playfulness, exactly like the kind that he gets with Fleabag. I dare you to try joking around with a “true believer” ENFJ. Their beliefs are deadly serious to them, so they show far less patience for sacrilegious play (unless, for some reason, they have developed an irrational fear of being criticized as dogmatic and pretend to be open-minded). Also, why would an *N*FJ be shocked and alarmed or seem resistant to using intuition to “read” people? Why would their intuition seem so painfully accidental? NFJs generally LIKE using intuition and do it naturally as part of who they are, they embrace it and feel more confident the more they are in touch with it.

Ns tend to speak in abstractions but not everyone who speaks in abstractions is N, similarly, every NJ needs a sense of purpose but not everyone who seeks a purpose is NJ -> beware this logical fallacy: “every cat has four legs but not every four-legged creature is a cat”. NJs need a purpose for materializing their personal potential, SJs seek a purpose for the sake of grounding themselves in something unshakable within - you point out the behavior without grasping the true motivation. When ESFJs develop Si well, they recognize that what makes them happy is to be of service, to be a positive contributor to their community, to be a reliable source of help and comfort to those in need. He is not a charismatic and boastful preacher of the ENFJ sort, rather, he sees himself as a humble servant who uses reliable traditional beliefs to help ground people who feel lost in hectic modern life, using his own past experience as the starting point. The fact that he has the strength to end the relationship with Fleabag before it becomes negative and destructive is a testament to Si steadfastness and how strongly the rules matter to him (Ns are very masterful at rationalizing that the rules don’t apply to them, and that’s often how they end up in bad places). Why would you expect him to display all sorts of negative signs of Si if he is meant to be the positive moral guidance for the show? And wouldn’t it make sense for him to use his well-developed Si to reveal to Fleabag the true extent of her dysfunctional Si? Would an ENFJ instinctively know better than an ESFJ how to remedy Si specific identity dysfunction?

Can you please allow us to submit things to you? In the case of long asks like mine, it helps to avoid any part not getting sent.

I have considered this before but I’m not sure I want to do that.

[getoffthesoapbox]

[R:MotM] - Hwa-Gun vs. Ga-Eun

As I was browsing through various corners of the internet where fans of this show gather, I found increasingly I had a few things I wanted to say about the apparent differences between Hwa-Gun and Ga-Eun and why Hwa-Gun seems to be attracting so much interest despite being a secondary leading lady. I thought I’d explore this bit more, and maybe it’ll be useful to anyone who is looking for a different viewpoint to supplement their enjoyment of the show. =)

I didn’t come into Ruler with any preconceived notions about who was playing the heroine or which actress was being featured. I began watching Ruler fairly late in the game and was just in it to see a new sageuk that looked pretty. This maybe colors my perspective a little differently than those who’ve followed the story from the beginning.

From the beginning, it wasn’t initially clear to me who the leading lady would be, at least not until the crown prince chose Ga-Eun. Once he chooses Ga-Eun (very soon into the story), Hwa-Gun’s position as secondary heroine became solidified.

However, the viewership seems to fall into two camps: one camp which is disenchanted with Ga-Eun as a heroine and wishes Hwa-Gun held that position, and another which feels Hwa-Gun is where she should be and that Ga-Eun is the proper heroine, even if the writing doesn’t always feature her.

I personally fall between the two camps. I’m not at all disenchanted with Ga-Eun--I think she’s a lovely character and a charming girl. But I do find myself wistfully wishing as I watch the show that the creators had been brave enough to try the Hwa-Gun character as a heroine rather than a secondary lead. Since I understand the appeal of both sides, I thought I’d attempt to explore the draw and the appeal of the Hwa-Gun character, while still acknowledging the virtues of the Ga-Eun character. 

Capturing the Viewers’ Interest

On paper, there’s absolutely no reason why Hwa-Gun should be more interesting than Ga-Eun.

On paper, Ga-Eun is a perfect leading lady--she’s kind, sweet, loyal, and compassionate. She does everything right--her only flaw is that she perhaps jumps to conclusions too quickly and doesn’t investigate events thoroughly. But who could blame her, when these events involve the very emotional and tragic loss of her father, her only remaining family, and her entire life? She’s a brave girl who is well worthy of the leading lady position and the heart and affection of the crown prince. 

Unfortunately for Ga-Eun, her very worthiness renders her...a tad too safe, a tad too boring. And this would be fine if she were paired with a secondary lady of the usual secondary quality--a catty, ambitious, scheming girl who possessively latches onto the crown prince the way the false crown prince latches onto Ga-Eun. With a secondary lady of dubious quality, it’d be easy to root for Ga-Eun.

But Hwa-Gun is not such a simple character, nor is she lacking in her own charms. What Ga-Eun has in compassion, Hwa-Gun makes up for with wit, intelligence, and cunning. She’s a woman raised within the realm of power and politics, the granddaughter of the most powerful man pulling the strings in the land. She is a selfish, spoiled girl, but she’s by no means an unloving or unkind girl. While she is not as compassionate for the poor or the needy or the downtrodden as Ga-Eun is, she does have a deep and single minded love for the people who are closest to her, and to their people. This includes more than just the prince--her father, Gon, even her grandfather--and it’s within these conflicted loyalties that Hwa-Gun makes for a compelling and interesting character, in spite of her flaws. 

Flaws Make the Woman

I think the reason we now commonly see the call for Hwa-Gun to be the heroine (and I myself sympathize with this perspective) is for two reasons:

Real, genuine flaws in a heroine are unusual (especially in asian drama) and they make the viewer sympathetic because they touch on the viewer’s own humanity.

Hwa-Gun seems to be “earning” her happy ending where as Ga-Eun seems to be “receiving” hers. Viewers naturally gravitate toward characters who are active about solving their problems, even when inaction is more than justified (human nature to prefer action). 

Significant character flaws are rare for heroines in general, which is a strike against Ga-Eun from the gate. Hwa-Gun, as a secondary lead, is allowed the freedom to not be a perfect compassionate infantilized angel. She’s a woman, with dark sides, who is not always compassionate. But who in real life is always compassionate? Who in real life always does the right thing? Very few people, and even if you think you’re one of the exceptions, the chances are you aren’t truly in touch with yourself as well as you should be.

Everyone has dark impulses, and to see a secondary leading lady being allowed not only to have those impulses, but to not be vilified for them and to be treated with narrative dignity and respect is refreshing and probably is one of the things drawing the sympathy of some viewers. 

Development with the Crown Prince

One of the other problems with Ga-Eun is that she receives the Crown Prince’s love very early in the story, and thus has not much to “do” narratively other than feel betrayed by him temporarily when she finds out he might have been the one who killed her father. Perfect couples who are meant to be are boring for a viewer, especially over a long series like Ruler. 

On the other hand, Hwa-Gun’s efforts to act by the Crown Prince’s side and to keep him safe and alive begin to come off as more sympathetic when compared to Ga-Eun being gifted the prince’s love so early on in the story. Viewers like change and the unexpected, and so having the Crown Prince shift his affection to Hwa-Gun would make for an exciting twist after the predictability of his stable relationship with Ga-Eun. 

Of course, that’s not going to happen because the writers are very clear that the Crown Prince has no romantic feelings for Hwa-Gun. There isn’t even a shred of interest from his side, which also contributes to making Hwa-Gun appear more sympathetic. While, yes, it’s unhealthy for her to work so hard for a man who doesn’t love her, we can’t help who we love and everyone has felt the pain of an unrequited or unfulfilled love that lasted many years after it began. 

Relationship Balance

Another factor viewers root for in a pairing which I think might be overlooked in the overall discourse is relationship balance. If a character has too much of X, viewers prefer a partner who has Y to balance X, rather than another character who also has too much of X.

For example, Ga-Eun shares the Crown Prince’s ideals. This ordinarily would make for a lovely match in a pairing, because sharing values is very important for long term happiness in a couple. However, the Crown Prince is so idealistic and so moral that he doesn’t know how to break rules and sometimes puts himself stupidly in danger over foolish ethical quandaries. Ga-Eun, as yet another overly idealistic person, isn’t going to be able to pull him back from his foolishness because she supports all his causes. This is all well and good if these two would go off and be farmers or merchants together, but they’re going to be King and Queen. A little bit of self-preservation would be good in at least one of these characters for them to be hypothetically successful.

This is where Hwa-Gun surfaces as a “better” choice for the Crown Prince on a practical level. Hwa-Gun’s focus is different from the Crown Prince. She places a higher value on his life than on his ideals. However, she does not dismiss his ideals, nor do her own ideals conflict with his. She is perfectly happy to work in service to his goal, so long as she can keep him safe. This makes her arguably more suited to the task of standing at his side as Queen--she will fight his enemies and destroy everything in the path to his ideal, but she also won’t support any foolishness on his part and will help come up with counter plans that will preserve his life. 

The difference is very clear in episodes 29-30. Hwa-Gun first tries to persuade the Crown Prince just to take over the Pyunsoo Group. When that fails, she comes up with a second plan using her father’s antidote. Ga-Eun, on the other hand, simply tries to convince the Crown Prince to sacrifice her and “do the right thing,” which of course he would never do. The argument against Hwa-Gun’s method is that, of course, the Crown Prince would die before submitting to Dae Mok, as the Crown Prince himself points out with the analogy of the wolf and the bloody knife. However, as we see, the Crown Prince does what Hwa-Gun wanted him to anyway because he’d never sacrifice Ga-Eun or Chun-Woo. Ultimately, Hwa-Gun’s method was the method he took, not Ga-Eun’s. This demonstrates, yet again, that Hwa-Gun understands the Crown Prince’s situation better than he does, and that she’s a better planner to be at his side than Ga-Eun.

When a viewer sees this, although she may be moved by Ga-Eun’s selflessness, ultimately it’s just noble stupidity. If the Crown Prince hadn’t been immune to the poison thanks to his childhood experience, he’d be dead thanks to his refusal to play the game Hwa-Gun’s way. What does that mean for his court with Ga-Eun at his side? Results do matter as much as the process--having a kind process which ends in failure is no better than a cruel process which ends in results. The point is to strike the right balance so that the kind process leads to good results. 

Again, this isn’t to say the writers are in any danger of choosing the Hwa-Gun route; this is only to explain why some viewers may choose to prefer Hwa-Gun as a candidate for the Crown Prince. Hwa-Gun, for all her flaws as a person and her myopic focus on the few people she holds dear, is far better positioned to maneuver the political field than a nobleman’s daughter who grew up outside the palace. Viewers notice this (I had a similar situation when I began to support Yeonhwa for So during Moon Lovers’ run), and their allegiances may shift accordingly. 

Ultimately, while I think Ga-Eun is a fine heroine and certainly fills her role adequately, Hwa-Gun’s just a more interesting character in general thanks to her conflicted loyalties and her narrative position and her action-oriented plotlines. A standard sweet girl doesn’t stand much of a chance against an unusual smart girl. Ga-Eun had an uphill battle from the get-go.

This is not to say that Ga-Eun’s actress is inferior in any way. I think the fact that Ga-Eun is still able to endear herself to so many viewers in spite of her character’s narrative weaknesses is a testament to the strength of her actress. Hwa-Gun’s actress certainly isn’t as good, and her character’s being carried more by the strength of the character than the strength of the acting. 

Long story short, sometimes perfect heroines don’t have enough edge to them to carry the viewers’ interest. Sometimes viewers just want a little more from their characters, and if a secondary lady offers that, they’ll gravitate in her direction. I myself appreciate what Hwa-Gun brings to the show, and I hope her popularity leads to a new horizon for leading ladies in k-drama land. =) It’d be nice for creators to realize that sometimes it’s okay to let the ladies have some dark sides. In the meantime, fans of Ga-Eun should rest assured--her place as leading lady will never falter. Ruler belongs to her.

[testurner]

Lose Control to Gain Control

LOSE CONTROL TO GAIN CONTROL |

Feeling out of control is a common performance blocker. It’s what happens when life is “doing you” rather then you “doing life”. It’s when everything thing seems to move in every direction and with no control and you’re the frustrated bystander that seems to fail at every attempt to make it stop.

Have you ever felt this way?

If you are the kind of person that is actually in tune with reality and notice when things aren’t performing well in your life (relationships, work, home, etc), then you’re not alone in feeling that way. The solution to that frustration is to let…go…of…your…control.

Let’s dive right in.

#1| Acting Too Much in the Moment

You’ve heard the phrase, “Be here now.” It was not intended to be taken literally. Quite honestly, do you really want to be where you are now? If you feel like you are going through the fire, don’t stop and pitch a tent. Yes, it can be comfortable and make you seem in control to focus on every single issue in the now. It can even make you feel like you are being a responsible adult. However, when you focus on controlling too much of what is going on in the present—more so distractions that keep you from ever escaping—you will remain in your tent singing kumbaya and forever will be putting out fires. Some things you just need to surrender (lose control) and move on to doing things that will get you to a better place (gain control).

 #2| Acting Too Much in the Future

Wait. What? But Tes, you just said to stop living in the moment? Actually, no. Reread that previous paragraph. Now, acting too much in the future can make you feel out of control because even though you are crushing your action steps towards your vision, you feel like everything else going on in your present life is an inconvenience or that you are a total failure at those other things. Well, they are not, and you are not. In fact, if you slowed down and stopped to acknowledge the other things going on in your life—like your family, friends, community, and other blessings in life—you will learn to appreciate their value and your awesome human brain will help you figure out a way to fit in quality time for those things too, if you try. You gain control when you lose control of ignoring real parts of your life. When you do, those inconvenient things will become malnourished important things, and then with effort, healthy treasures that bring a source of great joy and restoration. Your sense of failure will be replaced with the redeeming truth of who you really are. All around awesome. That’s you!

 #3| Preserving Your Clique from Entrants or an Exodus

Good friends are hard to come by. As are good business buddies. However, you can’t be friends with everyone, and you can’t do business with everyone. Keep this logic.

If you are feeling out of control or torn within your circle, your circle may have changed from a fluid circle into the death trap of a clique. You either have one level of friendship or no fluidity between the levels. In order to get control back in this area, do two things.

1) Keep up the good work of keeping unhealthy people out BUT release your grip and let good people leave. Wait….what?!! Yes, let people leave or retreat to another level. Relationships are hard work, and some come in seasons. Enjoy the season. Metaphorically speaking, don’t try to share a popsicle in the freeze of winter. Wait until summer. 

2) Let good people in. They may not be at the level of being in your inner circle, but they may be a good candidate for your outer circle. If you try too hard to preserve the cohesion in your circle, you may find that you are distancing yourself from and not allowing in some really awesome people because of what others may think. Perhaps a little disruption can do good and clean up your circle.

 #4| Perfection

It is always good to strive for perfection, however, sometimes it can cause failure to launch. And we all know what it’s like to be working so hard towards something and it just seems like the end is never in sight. It can be quite intimidating and make you feel as though you are running circles around yourself.  That launch date, book release, or dinner party just seems to be pushed out another week or months.

Most cases, good is good enough. If you choose to lose control of perfection, you in turn gain control of progress. So the next time you feel as though you just can’t begin something until something else is complete, ask yourself this question. Is what I have now enough to at least offer something that is coming from a place of truth and/or imperfectly satisfies the goal?

 #5| Being Comfortable

When things are going our way, serving us, or affirming our confidence, we default to feeling comfortable. But what happens when your boss is sick and asks that you facilitate the focus group meeting. Or what if your friend or loved one surprises you with a fancy surprise party and you’re wearing sweats and messy hair or an unshaved face. What if you ventured to an event by yourself and felt like all eyes were on you because you were the only one there in your ethnicity? What can you think of that makes you feel uncomfortable?

Discomfort can feel like lack of control because what we actually feel is a change in emotion that you didn’t ask for, want, or really struggle with how to change it to back to a more comfortable feeling. The quickest way to gain control here is to realize that most opportunity and growth births in places of discomfort. It’s when you focus on the opportunity that presents itself or what matters most that you gain control back.

 #6| Being Prideful

Did you know that there is a difference between being proud of your work and abilities and being prideful? Here are the differences!

Being proud of your work is a good thing. It means that you are satisfied with and feel a sense of accomplishment of what you have done. If you put the work in, you should feel proud. Did you do your best? Yes. Then be proud of that. As with anything in life, if used the wrong way, it can make you feel pretty bad. Being proud can turn into being prideful when the measure of your accomplishment is based on its comparison to other people. Comparing yourself from an unloving space can cause you to feel two ways: 1) that everyone is always competing with you (when it’s actually you) and 2) that you are superior to others and therefore exempt from help or improvement.

Lose control of how you compare to others to gain control of your self-value and confidence. Good pride comes from within and will always show you the next best step and will also make you receptive to being loved by other people in the form of help, assistance, and constructive feedback.

#7| Being the Solution for Everybody’s Issues

Who doesn’t want to go down in history as the hero or heroine? We all do. However, real heroes know that they can’t save everyone. Batman cannot save a crashing airplane the way Superman can. And Superman can only carry one spiraling plane at a time.

What makes you assume you can or should? The greatest commission we have in life is to love and serve others. However, if you are feeling out of control and burdened in this area it’s because helping others became your responsibility. Get control back by doing these two things.

1) Realize that everyone has issues and you can’t help everyone. You are only one person and need to keep enough in your emotional reservoir to manage your own life challenges in a healthy way. Identify your superpower and use it wisely.  

2) Sometimes the best help you can offer others is to stop being their solution and start being their support. Not financial support. Not their source of happiness kind of support. But rather, I’m here to listen…sometimes…not 5 times a day…nor 5 times a week. Just when you really…really need me. Most cases they figure it out and become stronger in the end.

 #8| Satisfying Other’s Opinions

The only person you can control is yourself. If you feel out of control, it because you are trying to control what someone else thinks. Listen, you can’t please everyone.

It’s impossible.

It’s a waste of time.

It’s a waste of energy.

The best way to get some control in this area is for you take back the control and power that you gave other people when you made their opinions the decision maker in your life. As long as you are coming from a heart space of love and moral value, always do what you believe is right and grant others the same grace.

#9| Can Do Attitude

Everybody wants to be the go-to person or be seen as dependable. To be looked to when things get tough or a hand is needed. This person is very agreeable, always up for the task, and says yes with a smile. Perhaps you’re that person everyone hates to hate because you’re always on top of your game and beating everybody at theirs. Wonderful! But beware. Having too much of a can-do attitude can cause great overwhelm and feeling like you are juggling too many balls up in the air and one of them is going to go crashing down.

There are three ways to get control here 1) Eliminate what you can release 2) Delegate what you can  3) Prioritize the rest. And if you really want to be in control, and easy way to gain control in a friendly way is so say no sometimes by saying, I wish I could right now but it’s not a good time. Or I’m sorry but I can’t. Or perhaps another time.

 ***BONUS***

 #10| Preserving Old Habits

You always brush your teeth before you get in the shower, hang your keys, plug your phone in at night, do groceries on the weekend, call your loved one on this day or at this hour, park in that row, sit in that seat, shake your leg when anxious, bite your lip when thinking, go to sleep at this hour, eat before this hour, work only these days, and put music on after starting the car. Not all are so bad on the surface.

Habits are what give us structure to our life. They create a framework and sense of order and, you guessed it, control. But what happens when these habits are infringed upon? Do you pass up on a lifechanging opportunity because it will require you to wake up three hours earlier? Or eat dinner after 8pm? Do you miss out on a conference, recital, or lunch because it would ruin your weekend errand routine or conflicts with your beauty appointment or television program? Do you miss out on peace and divine download because you are always filling your mind and ear gate with noise?

Lose control of the “always” to experience the “every so often” or “once in a lifetime.” The control you gain is identifying the gift in those experiences and choosing to act on that.

Are you feeling more in control now? Yes, you should! Keep that feeling and never forget that in any given moment, the real control is not being rigid but rather how you respond moment to moment.

[pinkxsheets-blog]

venus as a boy (pt.2)

(an interview with Olivier Delouche, who is my long-time friend, a male Frenchman, and a not so big fan of the patriarchy)

1. In terms of referring to the harmful behaviours often associated with the masculine, people often talk about ‘toxic masculinity.’ Would you agree with the idea that the patriarchy builds towards a toxic masculine culture?

Yes, I agree that the patriarchy builds towards a toxic masculine culture. I think it tries to masculinize traits and behaviours that should neither be imposed on men nor looked down on in women. Moreover, it either ignores or actively discourages men from another set of behaviours and traits that would indeed be beneficial to society if men embodied them. To name an example, there are clearly double standards when it comes to authority depending on gender (‘men are supposed to be authoritative’ and women who are authoritative tend to be called bossy, a word that has a negative connotation), whereas I believe that particular trait has a lot more to do with the individual personality of people rather than their gender. In short, I can’t think of a specific social behaviour that one shouldn’t exhibit (be it based on morality, social norms…) based solely on whether they are male or female.

2. Describe a time in your life you felt you struggled most with what was expected of you as a boy.

I don’t think I have ever had one scarring experience where the main cause of my frustration was the set of expectations assigned to my gender. In general, however, I would say that I feel trapped by what is considered acceptable behaviour by society in every day life. I feel it in particular when it comes to the way society looks at, deals with and judges typical relationships between males and females, in other words, how people should act in amorous/sexual relationships. In a lot of ways, I believe the type of relationships advocated for and sanctioned by society often times lack a lot respect and consideration. I wish society were more open to people not conforming with how most people deal with relationships, as well as fail to condemn sexism and misogyny within them.

3. How do you think your experiences/struggles with the patriarchy as a white or western man, give you privilege over other men, who are POC.

I don’t know if the fact that I struggle with the patriarchy in and of itself gives me privilege over men who are POC, although it could be said that my grievances with the system are mostly about what behaviours/discourses should or shouldn’t be allowed or encouraged, where as men who are POC have to add to that a struggle to be treated fairly based solely on who they are physically. It is no doubt immensely harder to be challenged or judged on something that you have absolutely no control over rather than something that you could theoretically change, regardless of whether you should/want to. It may also true that the patriarchy treats gender roles differently based on race, however I don’t feel like I know enough about this topic to comment appropriately.

4. What are some of the biggest issues that men face as a result of the patriarchy that you think we should be tackling. How do you think we should go about tackling this/these issue/issues?

A while ago I read about this advertising campaign that was launched in Australia to encourage men to cry. It tried to tackle a crippling problem in that country, which doubt exists in many others: a high rate of suicide in men. A lot of those suicides are motivated by a failure of society to accept men’s expression of feelings, which results in a sense of guilt; because after all, they’re not supposed to ‘be weak’, and crying is for the weak. Although there are many more insidious issues which can directly be traced back to patriarchal norms, it is worth focussing on a type of societal bullying which results in death. I believe the advertisement campaign used in Australia (which, if I remember correctly, used ‘shocking’ phrases and pictures) is a really good way to raise awareness for the issue, and make a large population of men more in touch with their feelings and their freedom to express them whenever they feel. What is also important is for people to lead by example; the more people are seen challenging patriarchal norms, the less normative they seem, and the less hesitant people will be to follow. However, it’s important to distinguish that they will not be following just for the sake of breaking norms or copying others, but rather, follow if that is how they would naturally behave. I believe this movement should be about emancipation of self, personality and expression. In other words, a purely personal experience which encourages to dare to be yourself even though you may be different than your neighbour.  

5. In your own terms, describe what it means to you to be a feminist.

I readily accept a widely accepted definition of feminism: the idea that there shouldn’t be any unfair discrimination based on genders. To say that there are no differences between men and women is to be intellectually dishonest, whether referring to physiological or psychological differences. This, in my mind, clearly allows for men and women to be treated differently in different situations. However, the double standards and discrimination that I see afflicting women (and to a lower extent, men) are in no way justified by the differences that can be established between the sexes (and which, by the way, in many cases we do not understand perfectly yet). To me, then, feminism equates to acknowledging that there are injustices that are based solely on gender, and challenging them whenever possible. Some people might see this as a kind of personal feminism, as opposed to activists who actively try to spread awareness to the issue. I see some problems with this wider type of feminism, but I agree that spreading awareness to issues is the first step to them being solved.  

6.  What do you think people should be doing more to tackle gender inequality?

I believe that something that would help this entire problem, for both genders, is scepticism. A big part of the problem is the way men and women are ‘fed’ patriarchal norms, from ads to TV shows to politics. For example, moral absolutism applied to characters from TV. Just because one likes a specific character, or can identify to some level with them, does not mean that character does or says everything right, and does not mean that it is good to try to be like them. In every day life, it is important to keep a dose of doubt, and to think twice before accepting something as ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ just because it is portrayed in public life. This would of course help tear down unhealthy and unjustified norms that contribute to gender inequality, but I believe it would also help solve other problems in our society.

[thehairypickle-plusone-blog]

Fractures of my broken mind

To this day I truly believe the month I spent in the Mother Baby Psychiatric Unit in Melbourne was the first time I have been truly open and honest with myself. As rewarding as this was. Things don't change overnight. I was discharged on December 9th 2016. That's 4 months of living with my new sense of self. 4 months of stripping everything back and baring the naked truth. 4 months of battling with what I know and don't know and have yet to understand. It's been a roller coaster of anxiety, crazy highs and massive lows. A battle with the bottle, my past boozy habits and Valium sanctuary taking a firm hold of me. Being frustrated that I'm not "better yet". I keep wanting this overnight fix. But every morning I wake up it hasn't happened. We talk about trauma and something traumatic. When I hear these words I think of a car accident causing trauma to the head or a traumatic event witnessing a terrorist attack or murder. I don't bring it home to me personally on a lifestyle of living. To be told you have had a traumatic childhood and upbringing just sounds odd to me when I don't use that word in context to a family environment. It also panics me because if I don't get well if I don't take a firm hold of the reigns in my life, will that mean I'm subjecting my son to a traumatic upbringing? Am I already doing that when I can't cope and put him in his cot to go close the door and cry for five minutes in the bathroom on my own whilst he screams out in his cot. Am I already being a bad mother? Am I already setting the stones to a shit upbringing? Why is my head so cloudy? Why do I just not want to hold my son somedays? Like he's a stranger to me? Yet when he's out of my care for more than an hour I'm lost and I need my little boy back in my arms. I suppose a lot of this is just part of being a first timer at this Mum business. I think too what is everyone else's crazy and dramatic is my normal in my head. You see my mind isn't wired quite the same as most peoples. My mind overreacts in what's usually an easily resolved scenario. My mind talks to me and tells me everyone hates me. That I'm a burden, a failure, a misfit. That I don't "belong" that I don't know where home is meant to be? I see things very much for black and white. I often fail to see and correspond to criticism or people's alternative opinions to mine. I'm extremely passionate though. I take a lot to heart and hold intense values and morals over a lot of things in life. If I don't like you, I actually am terrible at not showing it and playing nice. I cut people off when their values and morals don't match mine. I used to change boyfriends like I changed my underwear I don't think I've ever had a consecutive relationship without a break up lasting any longer than 18 months. I jump into the next relationship as I can't bare to be alone. I have holes in my heart of emptiness that started when I was 4 according to psychologists. How I've tried to fill those holes has been an unhealthy cycle of, booze, boys, sex, drugs and raging metal covered in tears of frustration. It's seen me surviving life and never properly living it. It's seen me drop to all time lows just to keep the lifestyle I so badly wanted. Moving forward my anxiety is rife at this current stage. Borderline personality disorder has been made my diagnosis. There is no drug to "cure" this. Just therapy and hopefully by my mid 30s it will ease off with its intensity. When someone has been exposed to a traumatic upbringing, for example violence, sexual abuse, neglect, drugs alcohol etc. they do not learn the fundamentals of what a healthy relationship is and what love truly is. What is ok and what is not. We are seen to be erratic and attention seekers but are anything but that. I believe BPD to be a mental illness that people fear along with schizophrenia as we can be so unpredictable. I have the ability to be loving and kind and warm and the whole time despise myself. I also have the ability to be a cold hearted bitch who will do whatever it takes to seek justice. I'm a sunflower I blossom and shine so brightly in full bloom but I can also be this lonesome wee seed not knowing where to start out. I always thought I just had depression & anxiety but my moods did not actually match those of that description hence after 26 years I was told the words I didn't want to hear but words that I had suspected where what my diagnosis actually was and that was that "Hannah you have borderline personality disorder". I guess in a way I am like my Mums favourite song by the Verve "bitter sweet symphony". "I'm a million different people from one day to the next I can change I can I can change". I see how she related that to her own mental illness of schizophrenia and likewise I can relate it to the unpredictability and irrational behaviours that come with BPD. However I won't sit and allow myself to wallow in this or have this diagnosis define me. I've recognised things are getting worse lately and I've reached out and spoken up to furthermore gain help. I have a support worker who comes over for 3 hours each fortnight to help me out with Ollie and household things that somedays just seem to overwhelming for me to do. I also asked my psychologist to change my sessions from fortnightly back to weekly whilst we go through a difficult chapter. Furthermore I've recognised there's only so much mindfullness and deep breathing I can do before I need medical intervention. Hence going back onto valium. Pharmaceutical drugs are not a bad thing and I wish we would stop labelling them as being so. I honestly don't know at times if I would cope being off them and have been strongly advised not to come off my anti depressants. So there you have it there's my crazy. I know I'm the crazy friend. The colourfully wild, unpredictable one. The one you all love one minute then go what the fuck Hannah the next. But that's just me. For now anyway, for now whilst I travel down this what is a very new and untraveled road of healing, educating, and pushing through the factors in which I need to learn to strengthen myself. To heal old wounds and learn how to properly smooth over the new wounds and issues that I face. I've loved I've lost. I cannot tell you how many people I've lost. Usually just out of not knowing how to deal with a situation. However now if I cut people off it's because my over exposure and awakening of myself has also made me look deeply into the friendships and relationships I have and what purpose they serve and if they are healthy or not? I know a lot of this is quite repetitive, I've spoken before in my blogs about all these different feelings. But now I have not a label but a better understanding and insight into what I believe to be my fractured unique mind. A mind that is so powerful it can have the ability to overrule my heart and hurt, lash out and push away the ones I love the most. It's usually the ones closest to me that suffer. It's not their fault and nor is it entirely excusable on my behalf, but it is a part of this journey as I learn what in fact are the fundamentals of love, Life and caring. What it means to be loved. Until Ollie was born I feel I can honestly say I never truly loved anyone. I was selfish and protective of myself. I sought out to empower myself and if it meant it hurt people along the way then so be it, I took no responsibility. Now I've taken back responsibility. I've looked at times and situations in my life that were not ok, where I put not only myself but others at risk. Where I lied to protect my own image whilst crumbling others. To be very clear in saying that I've lied this does NOT mean I lied about Ollies paternity nor does it mean I lied about my sexual abuse when questioned over both issues of in fact I had lied. I can be a cunt but not a sociopathic cunt on that level. To say I'm a mess isn't true. I'm colourful, and loud I'm also painfully awkward and reserved on many levels. I'm grateful for as I've learnt whom my true friends and family are as I've gone through this journey. Having seen through my own bullshit I'm also beginning to see through other people's bullshit. I once read a saying and it's so accurate "don't play victim to the circumstances you created". I grew up with people who did this. I too for a long time did this. I now see through it. It's a scary thing to be honest. To admit to your own faults. It's a beautiful thing to have purpose in life and I feel now I have found my purpose. Nothing greatly spectacular I'm not going to be the next Florence Nightingale or Frida Kahlo, but I am going to be uniquely and amazingly me and a vessel of love to my son and as a partner, friend and family member and general citizen of society.