Why is Gothel the bad guy?

Then we agree. Glad you saw reason.
Seriously now, ..

Hahahah, not too bright now, are we? Ah, the irony..

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"Hahahah, not too bright now, are we? Ah, the irony.."

Says the person that doesn't understand the difference between throwing a fit and trying assert independence from the person that kidnapped you.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Not even an acknowledgement of your fυckup trying to be glib. You must be thirteen or something and with a short-term memory of no more than 3 seconds. I shouldn't complain though, after all you did give me a medium laugh. So long.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Or it could just be that I stopped caring some time ago about a debate with someone who has not done the research into Tangled and its relationship to emotional abuse.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

people get angry all the time with others whose opinion they don't care for..

Think it through. Anger is emotional communication, like logic/speech is rational communication. You're either angry with someone because you seek validation and respect from them -like a child towards the parent - or you are angry with yourself and only direct it at someone or something else - like when you are angry with your clock or any such inanimate object.
The 'total stranger' element is irrelevant. As a person I am due proper respect from every fellow citizen, whether they know me personally or not. So if someone pushes me like a doll to get off the subway, I'll get mad. You simply cannot channel anger or shame towards someone whose opinion you do not care for. Perhaps you misunderstand what "caring for someone's opinion" means. It does not imply that you know them, or that you care for them, only that you care for what they think of you.
In contrast, if someone breaks into my house, I'll only get frightened. I'll try to escape or barricade myself in my room. Insult will be the least of my worries.

Besides, did you not read what I wrote about the copying mechanisms of victimized people? Either they identify with their oppressor (Stockholm syndrome) or they become manipulative. It is a law of nature, the only way to play the game when someone else has power over you. Why do you think poison and lies are attributed to women historically?
So Rapunzel throwing a fit, if anything, assures me that she feels in control of the situation, certainly not in any kind of danger.

What is absurd, is to think that because she found out about the lies, she stopped feeling the way she felt for her mother. It is precisely because she keeps feeling the same that she is angry. If you catch your partner with another in bed, it is precisely because you still love them that you are angry.

gothel has absolutely no interest in..

That's your opinion. Her motivations are open to interpretation (they are motivations and so unverifiable). The proper way to evaluate people morally is to examine how their actions benefit others, not to speculate upon intentions. Flynn's exposing Rapunzel to hardened criminals rates way higher in the villain scale than Gothel's insulating Rapunzel from the sycophants and pampered life of the palace. Add to that the fact that her very life was at stake, whereas Flynn was just inconvenienced, and she is almost a saint compared to him.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The proper way to evaluate people morally is to examine how their actions benefit others, not to speculate upon intentions.

Alright:

- Eugene was trying to scare Rapunzel, a girl he just met, so she would leave him alone. He brings her to a place he knows well (being himself a criminal), in broad daylight, where there are patrols nearby. He was not trying to harm her, he was nearby in case something goes wrong, and it's not like all criminals are violent men who do bad things just for the sake of doing bad things, so she was not at any real risks.
Eugene had no evil intentions towards Rapunzel, he was going to bring her back to the tower afterwards and just leave it here, he was not trying to lose her in the tavern or in the woods or anything, he cared enough at this point to have some decency. It brings nothing to Rapunzel, but he doesn't plan to harm her either.

And just to say, if we are talking about actions, Eugene's ended up delivering Rapunzel from Gothel and brought her back to her parents, so basically he gave her back her life and her freedom, willing to sacrifice himself in doing so.

- Gothel stole Rapunzel from her parents and locked her in a tower. Let's put aside the fact that she inflicted terrible emotional damage to the king and the queen, so great that they still celebrate her birthday and still feel devastated by their lost.
Now, about Rapunzel. Gothel deprives her of any human contacts and just steal her future. Her only friend is a chameleon, her whole universe is limited to a room. She is being lied to (about the world outside, about the reason she is being held in the tower) and mocked all the time by Gothel (little emotional damage that cause great guilt afterward). Rapunzel has no possibility to have a life of her own - no job, no friends, no family - while Gothel is free to go wherever she wants.
All that for what? For a woman who has already lived multiple times longer than any human being. She is pretty much as bad as Voldemort in this aspect, being so afraid of death that she will do anything to push it back as long as she can. She also had no intentions to ever let Rapunzel go (as showed at the end of the movie), so basically, she was stealing Rapunzel life just to add a bit of her own. She is pretty much a evil leech, and I don't see how anybody could defend such a person or think in any way that she cared about Rapunzel well-being.


Eugene is not even close to being called evil compared to her.

Her motivations are open to interpretation

Not one bit, all she wanted was not dying, and she was ready to do anything to make sure of that - kidnapping, lies, abuse, emprisonement, and even murder. She is showed very human in the movie to make her more interesting and to make Rapunzel who she is, but if her actions can be explained they cannot be forgiven. I find really disturbing by the way that you're trying to justify her actions and makes her like she was not that bad. I met people just like her, and all this manipulation and this selfishness make me sick when I see the results of their actions on people they are supposed to care for.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

He was not trying to harm her, he was nearby in case something goes wrong, and it's not like all criminals are violent men who do bad things just for the sake of doing bad things..

i)He was nearby alright, but not in any position to help her, every man in there could outfight him - Eugene did not have any talent for violence and did not bear the marks of it too (a good fighter is not one who has no scars like in dumb manga, but rather one who has many scars for many fights survived - like in smart manga :P).
ii)He was also alone so all the others could gang up on him in case he was a badass - which he was not.
iii)They wouldn't do bad things just for the heck of it, they would just rape her into unconsciousness and hold her for ransom (sex + validation + violence + money). And that's if they were reasonable. Criminal doesn't mean rebel or robin hood.

Eugene had no evil intentions towards Rapunzel, he was going to bring her back to the tower afterwards..

If you are saying he wasn't actively trying to harm her, I agree. What he intended was to perpetuate the cloak of fear of the world Gothel had sprung, and intimidate her into going back to her cell. So he actually aimed for the exact same goal as Gothel, and yet his stakes are inconceivably lower, he is just inconvenienced by her presence, whereas for Gothel it is a matter of life or death. Add to that the gross recklessness and criminal indifference of exposing a child to the most vile den of snakes he knows (he actually regards those sweethearts as vile) and you have a first-class villain. Bear in mind, nice almost never equals good.

Eugene's ended up delivering Rapunzel from Gothel and brought her back to her parents, so basically he gave her back her life and her freedom..

Her "parents" are not her parents, they are strangers. Her only parent was Gothel and he killed her. (Which I can't say I really hold against him, though, just saying)
As for her freedom, a quick research or even having watched a historical movie or series will persuade you that princesses enjoy no more freedom than that of the attic. In fact quite less, as every aspect of her life, from her clothes and the way she should speak and behave, to the man she would have to wed and the children she would have to bear, all would be decided for her. Of course here the king turned out to be every bit as sweetheart as the thieves, but I wouldn't have guessed it from the way he tried to have Eugene executed for robbery and without trial.

For a woman who has already lived multiple times longer than any human being..

Look, I get it that it seems reasonable that people should just lie down and die when they have lived as much as the rest of us, but it is simply very, very unreasonable. A man is just a dot in the line of time. However much one has lived, it is really irrelevant in any given time, for time lived is not a commodity we can take with us to the whatever comes after. Death is not natural. As Tolkien said:

'There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that ever happens to man is natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die, but for every man his death is an accident, and even if he knows it he would sense to it an unjustifiable violation.'

I don't understand why people accept that nothing is unacceptable when fighting for Love, but not when fighting for Life. (Actually I do, but I cannot excuse or forgive it).

Her motivations are open to interpretation

That holds true by definition. They are motivations and so unverifiable. You are welcome to your interpretation, but unless you are psychic it is just that, an opinion.
In any case, I am sorry if my position offended you, it was not my intention. I did not defend her because she was cool, or thought what she did was no big deal. I defended her because she is accused for all the wrong reasons, and because she is insecure, vulnerable. I have a soft spot for the kind of "evil" that retreats, avoiding fights it was sure to prevail in. When that kind of "evil" gets its chance at redemption I feel fulfilled. Perhaps you should share an example from the real world though, for I think that is what you projected on Gothel and truly rejected. I am sure I would reject it just as readily, but I believe it would be fundamentally different to this case. Cheers.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Eugene did not have any talent for violence and did not bear the marks of it too

No need for violence, there are different ways to "win" a fight, like just running away for exemple, or use the environment to slow down people trying to catch him. Of course Eugene is no fighter/brawler, he seems more like the type to use his charms and to escape whenever things get tough anyway. He's a thief after all. However, he certainly is able to take care of himself, otherwise he would not have survived long in this universe, and so he is certainly able to help Rapunzel.

a good fighter is not one who has no scars like in dumb manga, but rather one who has many scars for many fights survived - like in smart manga :P

Yeah, no, scars are only a visuel tool to define a character, it's all about looks, not power or smartness from an author. In manga, someone with scars is most certainly a yakuza, an old-timed fighter, or a bad guy/good guy badass, most certainly someone with a dark past, and we know that because we see scars. It doesn't say much about their combat skills. In Dragonball, no scars, because they have magic beans, for example, that's smart too. :-)

They wouldn't do bad things just for the heck of it, they would just rape her into unconsciousness and hold her for ransom (sex + validation + violence + money). And that's if they were reasonable. Criminal doesn't mean rebel or robin hood.

Yeah, I don't know a lot of criminals, but I'm pretty sure that they just don't rape and kill random people hoping to get money from them when they are just chilling and drinking in a bar. Your theory is entirely based on the fact that they are "criminals", which means a very large group of people with very different mindsets and personnality, that you just resume to "violence/sex/money". No need to be Robin Hood to have some decency or limits as a criminal.

What he intended was to perpetuate the cloak of fear of the world Gothel had sprung, and intimidate her into going back to her cell. So he actually aimed for the exact same goal as Gothel, and yet his stakes are inconceivably lower, he is just inconvenienced by her presence

He knows NOTHING about Rapunzel real living situation, her past or who she really was at this point. He didn't even know about her magic hair. From his viewpoint, she is just a typical annoying and awkward teenager who wants to get away from an over-bearing mother, like there are millions all over the world (daughters and mothers). She bears no physical marks of abuse, she is clearly intelligent and curious, she was able to submit him when he climbed up the tower. He has no way to understand what is really going on, which is the real horror of emotional abuse, as it can be very difficult to understand from the outside.
He was sending her to her so-called home, not to a cell, as even Rapunzel didn't consider her tower this way. It's not like he was sending her back to a dark dirty unescapable tower where she was physically mistreated, but to a comfy tower, to her "mother". The cell is in Rapunzel's mind, not in the physical world. And Eugene had no way to know that as he just met her. He was genuinely trying to just give her a scare, and the only reason you think that he did a bad thing by bringing her there is that you seem to consider every criminal as violent people only thinking about making a quick buck and abusing young women, which they proved was wrong (even if it's just a movie, there is truth to that anyway, not every criminal are as hardcore as you think).

Her "parents" are not her parents, they are strangers. Her only parent was Gothel and he killed her. (Which I can't say I really hold against him, though, just saying)

Gothel is her mother only until she realizes that she is not at the end. At this point, sure she still has emotional attachments to Gothel (that's perfecty normal as she has always considered her as such since she was born), but she is not "her mother" anymore. Gothel was not really good to her, she lied to Rapunzel her whole life (about the outside world and such), she used her for her magic, she tried to kill Eugene, she tried to chained her so she could no escape ever again. It helps once you understood all that to feel liberated from Gothel.
As for her real parents, of course they are strangers at this point, neither of them had the chance to develop an emotional connection, thanks to the witch. Still, they are her real parents, and that makes a whole difference. Many adopted people, even if they are very happy with their adopted family, crave to meet their true parents, to understand where they come from and such. There is a connection, whenever you see it or not, and they have the chance to develop it from now on, thanks to Eugene.

And yes, Eugene "killed" Gothel in a sense, but that was not his intention like at all, as I don't think he even knew for what purpose the witch was using Rapunzel power, and certainly not what would happen (even us as an audience were not expecting such a rapid aging and death). He was freeing Rapunzel from her faith, Gothel was just unexpected collateral damage. I get you don't like Eugene that much, but you seem very determined to make him the real bad guy of the story, for some reason, and that seems so far-fetched that it's a bit weird to have to defend him.

As for her freedom, a quick research or even having watched a historical movie or series will persuade you that princesses enjoy no more freedom than that of the attic.

Again, you're giving misleading arguments. Freedom is in decision-making and responsibilities, in the impact we can have on our life and our potential for changes.
Everybody has responsibilies at given points of their life, whenever it's a job or a family. Rapunzel had no responsibilities in her tower, not even taking care of her basic needs, so basically no life, so no freedom. She was just a tool to Gothel, she was barely considered as a human, and Gothel makes sure she keeps believe that as long as she could.
As a princess, sure she will have annoying responsibilities and lots of rules to follow, but she still has a lot to learn, and most importantly decisions to make, and she can have a actual impact on something if she decides to. That's freedom, freedom to make choice, freedom to change things accordingly to our personality. Some are just content leaving things as they are, and that's fine, that's their freedom, that's their choice, while others wants to be able to make changes, to have an impact on their life. It's all about opportunities, and Rapunzel had none in her tower, while she has tons as a princess.
It's ridiculous to compare living in a tower as nothing (not even a human being) and living in a castle as a princess with responsibilities...

Of course here the king turned out to be every bit as sweetheart as the thieves, but I wouldn't have guessed it from the way he tried to have Eugene executed for robbery and without trial.

Yeah, that is just a plot point to have a kick-ass escape, but nevertheless, if you think princesses have no freedom, kings have sometimes even less, and depending on the type of governement, they have no decisionnal power and are pretty much just a symbol of the country. We have no idea what kind of governement they have in this fictionnal world, so I'm not going to give too much thought on that.

I don't understand why people accept that nothing is unacceptable when fighting for Love, but not when fighting for Life. (Actually I do, but I cannot excuse or forgive it).

Only dumb people think nothing is unacceptable when fighting for love, as unspeakable things have been done in the name of love. Men/women have killed women/men in the name of love, many killed themselves because of love, mothers/fathers have killed children because of love. Passion and lack of love have send countless people to their graves.
The same goes for life of course.
However, there is a thing about fighting for life: What is pushing you to stay alive no matter what in the first place? Love is a general state of mind that considerably varies from people to people in intensity, but there is a general undestanding around the feeling. That cannot be said about life exactly.
Why did Gothel was desesperatly clinging to life? She had no family, no one she loved. She never shared the power of the flower with anyone as far as we know. She didn't seem to have a actual purpose in her life, a goal to attain no matter what, something that drives her, besides the fact she wanted to stay young and pretty.
I get the desire to want to stay alive, but not just for the sake of just staying alive or for fear of death. I read the story of a girl in my country, perfectly healthy physically but deeply suffering psychologically and who asked to be euthanised and it was accepted. Everyone has a very different outlook about what's worth living for, while love is easier to grasp in general.

However, it's like everything, whenever the reason, it's never excusable to hurt people deliberately in the process, despite how we can understand the reasoning or all the excuses behind, that's for sure. Which is why I can't defend what Gothel did in any way, as she knew perfectly well what she was doing when abducting Rapunzel, and just for the fact of kidnapping a child of course.

And by the way, it was not Tolkien who wrote that, he was just reading from an obituary, saying it was the key spring of LOTR.

When that kind of "evil" gets its chance at redemption I feel fulfilled. Perhaps you should share an example from the real world though, for I think that is what you projected on Gothel and truly rejected.

Well, that's the whole think, Gothel is not "evil" per say, she is just... human. She had no master plan, no intention to create chaos or anything. She was just an abusive selfish manipulative and insecure human being, like there are tons out there. I'm not going to start telling stories about my life to make my point, but she acts exactly like any manipulative mother. She depreciates her child, she makes her doubt herself, she paints a very dark world out there, she lets her make no decision, she forbid her to have friends or a life outside the house, while she is free herself to do whenever she wants. She creates and cultivate guilt and shame in her child, just to have power over her, because it serves her own ego, her vanities, all of that illustrated litteraly by the power of the hair in the movie. She doesn't care about Rapunzel, only about what she brings to her as a magic being, a tool. It's taken litteraly again in the fantasy world of the film but it's of course more subtle in the real world. Many parents don't really love their children, because to have to love someone just because you have to is a huge burden on their mind. No everyone is fit to be a parent, and this lack of preparation or willingness to accept this responsibility fully is what create deep traumatism in some children, because some parents ressent them or use them as "tool" (in a different way that Gothel, of course) or just don't fully realize that kids are people with personnalities, desires and feelings that requires time and patience to develop and being understood, and not toys that respond always like parents wish it.

You may feel empathy for Gothel, I can understand it, but just for the fact of kidnapping a baby and locking her up in a tower to feed her selfish need of youth and beauty makes her automatically a bad guy who deserves to be punished in my book, even if she didn't harm Rapunzel physically and provided for her, that's not even debatable.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

use his charms and to escape whenever things get tough anyway..he certainly is able to take care of himself, otherwise he would not have survived long..so he is certainly able to help Rapunzel

True, very true, and not true. If his way of surviving is running away, then he most certainly cannot help Rapunzel anymore than she can help herself. If someone brought you to a forest, face to face with a bear, and just shouted "danger, run" while running away, would you consider that they have endangered you or that they had absolute control of their situation? (Oh and his charms, although I agree to their frequent use, never got him out of danger - though I may have forgotten)

..scars. It doesn't say much about their combat skills..

I agree that in most cases it is just as you say, but in reality people who get into fights are hurt a lot, thus those who have talent in violence (and that must be tested, fighting with training weapons doesn't fully prepare one for a real combat situation) are the ones who got away with scars instead of dying on the spot. So scars absolutely are a way to tell who is veteran and who is green - that is if you have no other way to tell (e.g. bearing and confidence serve better, but it takes one to know one).

I'm pretty sure that they just don't rape and kill random people hoping to get money from them when they are just chilling..

That is because you have in mind contemporary offenders, living inside society, protected by anonymity, and thus keeping a low profile. I'm afraid that in historical times, highwaymen and such didn't even approach cities, for fear of being challenged by patrols and guardsmen. Territories outside the city walls were dangerous, and a woman traversing them alone would be fair game for desperate men seeking whatever small pleasure could be found in otherwise harsh and violent lives. Even today you have ghettos and such, where police go only in large numbers, and a person who doesn't belong is almost certainly victimized within (robbed, raped, killed, take your pick). The truth of the matter is that Eugene chose to endanger R so that he could keep his spoils.

He knows NOTHING about Rapunzel real living situation

You're giving him too much credit (or too little). He's been told that she knows nothing of the outside world, he can tell that she hasn't ever left her room (since it doesn't even have a door - he is not stupid) and so he sees an opportunity to misrepresent it in her eyes as a really dangerous, unforgiving place. If he thought she knew how the world outside her room was, he wouldn't try to persuade her that the average tavern was like that. That's why I say that he does the same thing Gothel does. He tries to mislead and terrify her. But as I said he is only moved by greed and indifference.

Gothel is her mother only until..Still, they are her real parents..Many adopted people, even if they are very happy with their adopted family, crave to meet their true parents, to understand where they come from

I am sorry you see it that way, that is, even though I respect your opinion, I only respect it as someone's opinion, and regard it as a weak, regressive and harmful idea. I have to say that, so that you know where I stand, but I could be wrong, I mean I am not attacking you or anything, I just strongly disagree.
My position is that parentage is a role, not a bond of blood or spirituality or such superstitions. It requires of someone to assume responsibility and enforces a certain dynamic in the relation. That is, it begins with choice rather than coincidence, and it shapes a unique kind of relationship, unlike any other forged later in life. You only have the one mother, and that's not a blood test result saying so, it is your inner feelings, the deeper recesses of your personality, where the mother fits in like a key. Another may assume the role in between your upbringing - sometimes it can't be helped - but depending on the developmental stage that the change takes place, the new parent is like a crutch compared to a limp. It may restore some functionality, but it doesn't truly fit.
As for adopted kids trying to find genealogically related individuals (I won't besmirch the word by calling them 'parents' - let alone 'true parents'), it is no different than people trying to find religion or spirituality or such. No offense to the believers out there, but the links of parentage are real, not make-believe, and I mean scientifically real, just to be clear.

Rapunzel had no responsibilities in her tower, not even taking care of her basic needs, so basically no life, so no freedom. She was just a tool to Gothel

That's inaccurate. She cooked for herself - Gothel was out for long periods of time - she cleaned the house they shared, she decorated it the way she so fit, she was in charge of admitting anyone to the tower through her hair-rope, she did what she wanted when she wanted it - provided it would be inside the tower.
Nobody taught her to curtsy, nobody arranged her marriage to some old rich fat-man, nobody had her practice embroidery, nobody made her believe her sole purpose in life was to warm the bed of her husband and birth him a bunch of sons and become a grandmother by 30, nobody told her to smile and be pleasant and keep her opinions to herself, nobody raised her to be a weakling. In fact she is so strong, so independent and self-reliant (in my opinion through her constant rivalry and competing with poor, old, insecure Gothel) that she braves the outside world on guts alone. That's not a princess mentality, no sir.

kings have sometimes even less..

By your own argument you prove that sometimes kings do not have absolute authority, not 'even less than the princess'. Maybe in a parallel universe (or in Britain) a king enjoys less authority than the Queen, but never the princess. The prince is an heir and the princess a tool. I think what you were trying to say was that sometimes the king is bound by law to force things upon his daughter. That's only saying what I said while speculating upon his intentions, which are unverifiable and irrelevant. 'No more' never means 'even less'.

..it was not Tolkien who wrote that..

I know that friend, which is why I never said he 'wrote it'. It just so happens that I hold him in much higher regard, and besides, it wasn't an argument from authority, it just so happened to be eloquent and in point.

she acts exactly like any manipulative mother..

Thank you. Finally. That's exactly what I think. A few posts back I even wrote something quite similar, complete with the analogy of the sun-treasure that every mother feels the need to keep to herself, locked away from the world. Of course any good mother will fight through the selfishness and do what's right by her child. But Gothel isn't really a good mother. Oh, and love is selfish, it takes a feat of will and a basic understanding of the world to do the right thing. Overprotective mothers do love their children, they just so happen to smother them because of ignorance. (of course G is overprotective of her life-spring, but she acts just the same)

Gothel is not "evil" per se, she is just... human..a bad guy who deserves to be punished..

Quite so, you are right of course. In fact redemption comes through punishment more often than not. In the greek war of independence, there was this Patriarch (Gregory V of Constantinople) who anathematized the insurgents and denunciated the movement. Nonetheless he was executed (lynched). Now that gruesome, torturous death, acted as his redemption in the course of history. Warriors would..engrave his name on their swords, as powerful a symbolism as any I can think of.
In this case though it seems more like an admonition. "You tried to escape death, now die and be forgotten"
It would have been way more satisfying if G had to grudgingly accept that she needed R's help and had to make herself useful to keep getting her 'fix', maybe by treating the sick or teaching alchemy or some such.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Being a parent is not just a role, the blood bond does mean something, you form a very strong bond with your child when it is born. that's why many adopted children feel the need to seek out their birth parents. And anyway rapunzel was not adopted, she was kidnapped and held prisoner by a wicked witch. gothel is not her mother in any sense of the word, either blood or adoptive. She is merely using rapunzel to prolong her youth.

and as far as royalty goes, a king does not enjoy less authority than a queen in Britain. wherever did you get that idea from? the reigning monarch has the same degree of power, whether they are a king or a queen.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

the blood bond does mean something, you form a very strong bond with your child when it is born. that's why many adopted children feel the need to seek out their birth parents.

Whoah..so you're actually saying that even if a mother with no genealogical relation to her child, never shares that information, the child will somehow sense that something is amiss. You're saying that when a child is born, there is a bond being forged with a sperm donor who might happen to be in another continent or planet. And what about the surrogate mother system? With whom then is the bond forged? The "real mother" that provides the uterus, or the "real "real mother" " that shares the blood? And this bond binds the bodies or the souls or the "energy" of the individuals? Come on now, this is a serious subject, when I said bond, I meant psychological. It is not a philosophical question, so I am not interested in non-scientific answers.

rapunzel was not adopted, she was kidnapped and held prisoner

Adoption is not about signing legal documents, it is about assuming responsibility for a human being. R being only a baby meant that consent was irrelevant and frankly I find the notion that one human has some kind of claim over another offensive. Besides, whether her custody was lawful or not is absolutely beside the point. The only thing relevant is R's feelings. Let me give an example. Suppose a woman comes in my house and hands me a blood test that proves she gave birth to me, and a video tape of my mother stealing me from the crib. Then said woman tries to murder my mother. What do I do? It is a dilemma. (To stab her or to shoot her..)

a king does not enjoy less authority than a queen in Britain. wherever did you get that idea from?

I said 'maybe' and I was only covering my bases. I did not need to make a case for King>Queen universally so I assumed a wider position. The only important point of my argument was King>Princess. Do you contest that? If not then we shouldn't be talking about it at all.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"notion that one human has some kind of claim over another offensive."

Yet this is exactly what you're arguing. That Gothel has a claim over Rapunzel because the latter was in the former's possession.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

No claim. I've only said that she took care of her, raised her, taught her, shaped her, antagonized her, consoled her.. For better or worse she managed to make herself a major part of R's life. Claim has nothing to do with it.

I don't even contest that her custody was unlawful. I'm only saying that laws have nothing to do with people's actual needs and feelings. Take for example a paternity test. A woman could use it to challenge the father's rights in a custody battle. Does that take into account the needs of a child? Not even close. It just recognizes claim, like we're talking about land.

Of all the things I said, what gave you the notion that I think someone has claim on R?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

As long as you keep arguing that she was a mother and not manipulative kidnapper, you're arguing that she has claim over Rapunzel. She didn't simply pick up a stone from a creek. She broke into the castle and kidnapped a defenseless child for no other reason than to cheat death. You're defending someone that sees Rapunzel as a bottle of pills.

The only thing Gothel taught was being so afraid of the world, that she would be so emotionally scarred and guilt-ridden if she were to ever leave the tower that she remained willingly.

Those "gifts" Gothel brings Rapunzel? It's a common tactic among abusers and kidnappers to distract and trick victims. Those gifts aren't out of love. They're out of fear, giving Rapunzel something to do and then making her feel guilty about it if she doesn't do what her so-called mother tells her. There's motherly guild, then there's manipulative guilt. This is clearly the latter.


"The only thing relevant is R's feelings."

And if you truly understood that, then you would know why Gothel is the bad guy.


If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

She cares not for Rapunzel, and it shows when she chains Flynn

It is tempting to see the world as black and white only, but contrary to popular belief it is not a characteristic of a fairy-tale world, only of a paranoid with safety and security and high "moral" values. Whether or not she cares for R and how much, is not something you can be certain about. You can only infer her intentions based on her tactics, and the assumption that she is a rational person.

If we analyze her choices there is one thing absolutely clear. G never chose what was absolutely safe for her. True villains tend to think the rest of the world is just as selfish and unscrupulous as they are. They are paranoid where their safety is concerned, they never take chances with their life or property just to be less vile. If I was a villain, totally devoid of empathy and determined to keep R with me and absolutely indifferent to her suffering, I would have lobotomized her, or mutilated her, or psychologically and physically abused her (really abused her, not the Lite version people have been arguing about) to the point where she would never challenge me or defy me under fear of very real punishments and the absolute certainty that she would get caught.
That's what Ramsey does to Theon. That's what it means to be broken, not being brave and carefree and joyful and ambitious and brightening everyone's world. I don't care for speculations about G's intentions. Judging by the result she is the best mother a child could have, and every child-psychologist would vouch for it.

Contrary to this, G never makes herself someone who R wouldn't defy. At best she sees her as her mother, and guess what, children defy their parents as a rule. A parent is the most likely person a child will defy. G never takes any real precaution - like walling R in and use a key for coming and going. G even surrenders Eugene to justice instead of killing him. She only harms him when she has no other choice. And even then, she gives him the chance to foil her plans yet again. Was she supposed to let him unchained also? Ridiculous. You say starvation, I say she would send a letter to the guard so that they could come and take him into custody. And let him try to seduce his way out of the hangman's noose. The important thing was that she spared him, twice, and she payed for it with her life.

mental manipulation into making someone think they love you, to guilt them into staying, is a lot more effective emotionally.

Love is not something you can manipulate. Infatuation yes. You can seduce someone and exert control over them, but love is on a whole different level. There's no counterfeit, you have to expose yourself, invest time and in the end, deep inside you're just as much invested as the one you want to be loved by. It is what happens between parents and children. As much as a child might hate an overbearing parent, there is still love buried deep. (that doesn't apply to child molesters and such criminals who breached the trust and safety requirements of the role)

"Being immortal and still producing offspring makes no sense to me"

But we're humans, and we would continue to reproduce despite immortality.

You are absolutely right. What I meant was "being immortal and still allowing reproduction doesn't make sense to me". A lot of people act according to principle but the few who wouldn't, would threaten the system. That's what law is used for.

As long as you keep arguing that she was a mother and not manipulative kidnapper, you're arguing that she has claim over Rapunzel.

I don't see why. And I don't see why those two are mutually exclusive. Historically it was very common for a man to "steal" a woman. Not as a slave but as a wife. In such a case he would be a kidnapper and a husband both. After a while he might come to care for her a great deal. Take for example the Iliad. Achilles and Patroclus had kidnapped Briseis. Yet they cared for her deeply and when Patroclus is killed Briseis is inconsolable. Do not let nowadays political-correctness-obsessed mindset get to you. Very few things in life are black and white.

The only thing Gothel taught was being so afraid of the world, that she would be so emotionally scarred and guilt-ridden if she were to ever leave the tower that she remained willingly.

I have already answered to this in a previous post. Check the one with the reference to Coriolanus. Suffice it to say that G taught defiance and independence to R even just by antagonizing her. Parentage is very complicated, it's not like training a dog or something (which is complicated in itself compared to programming obviously).

"The only thing relevant is R's feelings."

And if you truly understood that, then you would know why Gothel is the bad guy.

She is the bad guy. But as I said things are not black and white. In children stories, in contrast to religious propaganda where the evil is of the absolute, implacable variety, the bad guy is actually more tailored to the psychology of a misbehaving child. As others have pointed out G is just being human and selfish. That's not a villain.
Take for example the beagle boys. They are always planning mischief and they are not beyond endangering others for selfish goals. But they are not true evil and thus if one of them was harmed by Scrooge or the twins, it would seem terribly out of place. I am reminded of an Indiana Jones movie, where he is fighting against a Hindu or Sikh or some such fellow. But when that man's belt gets caught in an industrial rock-breaker contraption, Jones does everything in his power to save him. In fact you can tell just by looking in their eyes that all past grievances are forgotten. So that for example is a bad guy. And yet not the true villain.

And besides, whatever G is, whatever her intentions, whatever her motivations, the role she has played for 18 years cannot be swept away by a few revelations. R cannot help but feel for her, for she too is just human.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

They are very black and white in this story.

You downplay Gothel's clearly abusive actions and justify her kidnapping of a human being because she wants to use that human being as an object.

Parenting might be complicated. But her actions are not that of a parent and the movies makes that very clear. I just can't see how anyone can defend this woman's actions as if she were a loving parent. It's insane,

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

They are very black and white in this story.

They are anything but black and white. Eugene intentionally endangers R by exposing her to the criminal element, the king sentences Eugene to death over grand theft, the criminal element turns out to be sweethearts, G's first thought was to steal a single strand of hair from R, and so on.

clearly abusive

Clear only to you. Abuse is a criminal offense and thus clearly defined. You must establish harm (or threat of harm) to the child before you accuse the parent. Up to the point where she chained R there wasn't anything of the like. (Kidnapping is not abuse, R was not walled in, etc)

her actions are not that of a parent

Most parents do much worse, today, when child services function like the Gestapo. In historical times G would be a model parent.

defend this woman's actions as if she were a loving parent. It's insane

My position is hardly defensible on its own. If you put things in my mouth I never said, you obviously make it seem insane. What I said was that 1)for better or worse G is the only mother R's ever known and thus a part of her, and 2)whatever G did, she did it in defense of her life, so from her point of view it was necessary.

If you want to establish G's villainy, you have to show how she could have maintained what was imperative for her and thus non-negotiable (her life), while causing less harm to others. If there was a way and she didn't take it because she was sadistic or vainglorious or something, then yes, she would be villainous. If not, it is a political question, not a moral one. That is, only in a fascist world people are expected to die on principle.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There is such a thing as emotional abuse, and many real life victims recognize the tactics Mother Gothel used.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

emotional abuse, and many real life victims recognize the tactics

Harm must be established. Abuse is an offense not a unicorn or god or love, it is not recognizable only by those who were exposed to it. It is an offense, which actually means it is not a real thing unless the harm is obvious and irrefutable.
Bear in mind that in historical times violence (real violence, not G's "tactics") was quite acceptable. I am old enough (30) that when I attended school, teachers were still carrying switches to discipline kids. If you go back a hundred years (or a thousand to be in the knight era) "emotional abuse" would be an utterly incomprehensible concept.

I also think that real victims of abuse would take offense at the comparison.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Harm is established, it's just not physical harm.

You're argument is basically "We didn't know about it then, so Gothel's treatment of her is OK." That's disgusting, especially since you continue to remain in willful ignorance on the subject of Tangled and emotional abuse.



If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Harm is established

"Established" actually means something, it means that a medical expert would conclude it has taken place, after examination rather than speculation - that means specific findings, concrete proof. I am tired of people throwing around words they don't know the meaning of, solely for their impact.

We didn't know about it then, so Gothel's treatment of her is OK." That's disgusting

You are only describing the principles of law, specifically the presumption of innocence. I get why a fascist would find the Law disgusting, but I don't get why one would choose to paint himself as fascist.

Oh, and you completely ignore the argument that "emotional abuse" does not actually mean anything to the pre-political-correctness world, for example the world of knights and princesses. Your problem is that you don't know the difference between abusive and abrasive. If your pride allows it look it up in a dictionary.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"Oh, and you completely ignore the argument that "emotional abuse" does not actually mean anything to the pre-political-correctness world,"

Because it's nonsensical. Just because it was accepted practice then doesn't mean it was right.

No. The problem is you can't admit that many of the tactics Gothel uses are the same that many abusers use:

The U.S. Department of Justice defines emotionally abusive traits as including causing fear by: intimidation, threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends, destruction of pets and property, forcing isolation from family, friends, or school or work. Subtler emotionally abusive tactics include insults, putdowns, arbitrary and unpredictable inconsistency, and gaslighting (the denial that previous abusive incidents occurred).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse

Intimidation and Isolation - tricks Rapunsel into isolating herself by fearing the world. Uses a very threatening tone to intimidate Rapunzel into staying. Manipulates others to convince Rapunzel to remain isolated even after her escape.

Arbitrary and unpredictable inconsistency - Won't let Rapunzel leave the tower, yet she freely leaves. Bursts out into anger for no reason other than Rapunzel wanting to leave for one day.

Insults and putdowns - The first exchange Mother Goathel and Rapunzel have. Mother Knows Best and its reprise.

One could even make the argument for gaslighting, as Gothel denies she has mistreated Rapunzel and guilts her into thinking she is loved.



If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Because it's nonsensical. Just because it was accepted practice then doesn't mean it was right.

"Then" meaning here the world of the story, so "accepted" means by definition right. You seriously would go to ancient Spartans who took 7 year old boys from their mothers (kidnapped?) and put them through a barrage of physical, emotional and psychological punishment as part of their education, and tell them "this is not right"? What would you say if a spartan came to you and told you that your twelve year old son is entitled to sexual relations with an adult and you're 'abusing' him through isolation and constant supervision?
The accepted practice of the time IS the right thing (for that time).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse

You just admitted that you conduct your research through wikipedia, but I'll indulge you just the same, after all you're desperately grasping for straws here.

causing fear by: intimidation, threatening physical harm to self..

That actually means that the danger comes from the parent. If a mother tells her child that drugs are dangerous and that people have met gruesome ends by using, she's OBVIOUSLY not intimidating the child or threatening physical harm. Did you hear G say "don't go out there because I will beat you"? If not have the grace to admit you were wrong.

forcing isolation..

The first word didn't register to you? It says "force", as in locking or walling in or threatening the child. If a parent says "go to your room, you're grounded", that's disciplinary, if he actually carries the child to a room and locks it inside, that's abuse. The deciding factor is FORCE, and it's in your quote for crying out loud. I didn't make it up, it is the fυcking LAW. Again have the grace to admit you were wrong.

Subtler emotionally abusive tactics include insults, putdowns, arbitrary and unpredictable inconsistency..

1)So, the insult was calling her a strong, beautiful, young lady? Or when she instructs her to stop mumbling and enunciate clearly? Quote something that you think can pass as an insult. Can you?
2)"Putdowns", that's what you get when conducting research through wikipedia, that's not even a real word.
3)Arbitrary and unpredictable means that the rules change without good reason. That it is OK one day to go out and the next isn't. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case, G's rules are constant and unchanging, she says it is a dangerous world out there and it is best that she take the risk to bring back food so that R can be safe. If anything, it is showed that she says the exact same thing to R at 10 that she says to her at 18.

Your confusion stems from failing to understand the mechanism. A child has no problem following rules and being disciplined when not - which is fundamental for its development - and by nature it will test that rules to an extent, which is what R does, she tests the rule about the danger of the wilderness. But if the rules change at the whim of the parent, then the child learns nothing from the process. Imagine a tree being shaped. If first you try to direct its development one way and during the process you change your mind and direct it the opposite way, you will break it.

What you fail to understand is that an abusive parent is NOT someone who fails to follow some rules written in some book of some clerk. It is a parent that the child does not feel SAFE with. The rules are meant to encompass the tactics that will not make the child feel threatened by the parent. In contrast, if there is one thing certain here, it is that R feels absolutely safe and sound in her mother's arms. She is just bored.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[edit in progress]

The nice thing about Wikipedia is if you were to scroll down, you would see the sources used.

If this were a formal thesis on the similarities between Gothel and an emotional abuser, I would instead use Wikipedia as a base, scrolling down, and then use those sources. As this is a forum in which I am dealing with someone trying to treat a kidnapper and victimizer the same as a parent, Wikipedia is good enough. If you have a problem with that source, by all means scroll down and look into the bibliography provided.

And no, an abusive parent isn't as simple as not feeling safe. Many children could be and likely are manipulated into feeling that is the safest place for them when it isn't.


If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Wikipedia is good enough

Since you fail to make a single convincing argument or understand the definition of most terms you use, I would say no, wikipedia is not good enough, you need to open a book or read some of those sources you were talking about. It is not me who has a problem with the source, it is you who fail to answer to a single point I'm making. Trying to make it seem like you had provided sources in favor of your position that I doubted, was too cheap a trick even for this board. What I did, was take them one by one and explained to you why they were actually against your position. I could just as well have posted that myself, that is how much it supported my claims. I even tried listing them with a number attached so that you wouldn't get lost, but you probably can't follow the logic behind.

abusive parent isn't as simple as not feeling safe. Many children could be and likely are manipulated into feeling that is the safest place..

Safe and safest have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Safe has absolute value, not relative. If you assign relative value to the word then "safe" means "safe enough". So no, wrong again.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Your first quote is why I don't try making convincing arguments. Yours are already nonsensical. You try defending a kidnapper and victimizer as though she were a rightful parent. You then come up with some odd argument that if it was accepted then, it was right. And you're wondering why I'm not even trying to come up with a convincing argument??? You're clearly not someone to be taken seriously. But fine, even though you were too impatient here you go.

"Then" meaning here the world of the story, so "accepted" means by definition right”
“The accepted practice of the time IS the right thing (for that time). “

That’s not exactly a difficult stance to have when sitting behind a computer.

Slavery was an accepted practice. I’ll tell you what. You admit publicly that slavery was right (and I mean to the world, not just on here) and come up with a way for me to travel back to ancient Sparta, I will bravely tell them that their abuses are wrong.

“That actually means that the danger comes from the parent.”
“"don't go out there because I will beat you"? “

Not all threats are explicit. Some are implicit.

Like Gothel’s tone when telling Rapunzel not to ask or the outburst of anger when Gothel was sensing a loss of control as Rapunzel kept trying to show she could go outside.

“The first word didn't register to you? It says "force", as in locking or walling in or threatening the child.”

Or like kidnapping a child and never giving her the chance to leave by creating a psychological prison. Oh, and also the force imprisonment at the end.

“1)So, the insult was calling her a strong, beautiful, young lady?”

No, the insult was implying that she was calling Rapunzel that only to take it back and say it was Gothel herself she saw.

The insult was also when she said she didn't know why it took so long for Rapunzel to pull her up to the tower.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIs9sFyFSDk[/youtube]

39 seconds. That is clear hurt on Rapunzel's face. You said you want to consider her feelings, but it's clear to me you completely ignore them.

“ Or when she instructs her to stop mumbling and enunciate clearly?”
After creating an environment that Rapunzel feels so nervous about asking permission that she has to mumble, and then puts her down for it and then says she’s just teasing.

“Quote something that you think can pass as an insult. Can you? “

Sloppy, under-dressed
Immature, clumsy - please!
They'll eat you up alive
Gullible, naive
Positively grubby
Ditzy and a bit, well, hmm...vague
Plus, I believe
Gettin' kinda chubby

Just proves you're too naive to be here
Why would he like you? Come on now - really!
Look at you - you think that he's impressed?
Don't be a dummy
Come with mummy

Those two entire songs are insulting Rapunzel. Gothel doesn’t mean it about her being clever, the tone is incredibly condescending, especially in the reprise.
“2)"Putdowns", that's what you get when conducting research through wikipedia, that's not even a real word. “

“3)Arbitrary and unpredictable means that the rules change without good reason.”

What is the good reason, now that Rapunzel is clearly old enough, that the rule only applies to her but not Gothel? That is a another way for the rule to remain arbitrary and changed. Changing doesn't mean not constant in this case. It means being applied differently for no clear reason, which there is none since Gothel continually goes out into this supposedly dangerous world yet forces Rapunzel to stay.

"Safe and safest have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Safe has absolute value, not relative. If you assign relative value to the word then "safe" means "safe enough". So no, wrong again."

No, you are wrong. You are the one saying that as long as a child feels safe without establishing that they know any better, then you are the one saying they are safe enough.
If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yours are already nonsensical.

You can manage the declaration of your position. Now let's see how you defend it.

even though you were too impatient here you go.

Next time just write your post from start to finish. It is not like I have nothing better to do than reloading the page, and besides before your first edit there was no "edit in progress" sign. I only answer when I get the notification.

You're clearly not someone to be taken seriously.

Thank you. Insults are only establishing your moral character. I have nothing to fear from such tactics. (0 out of 1)

Slavery was an accepted practice.

Whoah, lame much? You're trying to maneuver me into taking position in favor of racism? Do you take me for a fool? I only need to point out that Achilles had a slave (a sex slave in fact). And YES, he was the HERO, not the villain. Need I scour literature for heroes who had slaves? Just because Americans had slaves based on their race, rather than battle-captives, and well after the rest of the world had condemned forced labor, doesn't mean the ancient civilizations were uncivilized. What you don't understand is that battle-captives were just that, not picked for the color of their skin. Slavery was accepted because all cultures practiced it. A slave who had bought his freedom could very well had bought slaves himself after that. That is, he himself, while being a slave, deemed his fate quite acceptable and justified, one of the possible outcomes of going to war. Do you want my name now to harass me? What an idiotic dare that was, even if I make a video on youtube where I express that position, you cravenly hide behind the impossibility of you keeping your end of the bargain. (0 out of 2)

Not all threats are explicit. Some are implicit.

So what did your abuse-o-meter tell you then? What was the threat? How did you determine that it would be something exceeding acceptable disciplinary actions? Or are you foolish enough to think that a parent shouldn't discipline a misbehaving child? (0 out of 3)

never giving her the chance to leave by creating a psychological prison.

Nope, sorry, force means that the person who is forced, wants to leave but is impeded. Psychological prison means the person wants to leave, but..doesn't want to leave. So no. (0 out of 4)

also the force imprisonment at the end.

First of all, that was the end. Your whole argument lies on the premise that G has been abusive while R was a child - R is old enough to have children of her own, on the brink of puberty, which she would have if she had stayed with her parents. And, that happens when R raises her hand against her mother in anger. Do I need to explain how out of place it was to become violent, against her mother, that hadn't so much as raised her voice in the past? This was not in 2015 US, in fact if it had happened in 2015 Saudi Arabia or some such (let alone in the middle ages where the story unfolds) nobody would fault G. (0 out of 5)

No, the insult was implying that she was calling Rapunzel that only to take it back and say it was Gothel herself she saw.

And then taking that back too, and saying she was only joking so the first remark was the real one. Do you have a selective memory? And clearly you have no idea what an insult is. You need to openly attack and belittle the other person for it to constitute an insult. Same goes for the next alleged "insult", which is not even a statement, just a question. (0 out of 6 - though that was a double)

an environment that Rapunzel feels so nervous about asking permission

There was absolutely nothing threatening about the environment, no punishments, no threats for you to have come to the conclusion so early in the movie that R was nervous because G might hurt her. G was just teaching her to act like an adult. You obviously find fault with that too. (0 out of 7)

Songs

You are quoting the fυcking song? Am I to believe that she is abusing her through a fυcking song that they are both dancing to? How fυcking ignorant to the cruel reality of true abuse can anyone be? Do you even know what those words mean? Under-dressed for example, you think that's insulting? Oh dear.. (0 out of 8)

What is the good reason, now that Rapunzel is clearly old enough, that the rule only applies to her but not Gothel?

The reason is that when danger lurks, the parent is the one to brave it, the one to take the risk. That is universal in time, place, culture.. Have you noticed in movies, when the characters hear a noise, and the father goes to check what it was, and says "you stay here"? That is not arbitrary behavior, and if you had read the vaunted sources behind your wikipedia quote, you would know what arbitrary and inconsistent behavior is. But that would take effort. (0 out of 9)

No, you are wrong. You are the one saying that as long as a child feels safe without establishing that they know any better, then you are the one saying they are safe enough.

That doesn't make sense due to syntax errors. Feeling safe means..feeling safe, from every danger. It means that there hasn't been a breach of safety before. So when R storms into G's arms and buries her in a rib-crushing hug and feels safe enough to cry, believe it that G IS HER MOTHER.
What you're saying is that a Jewish person who had just escaped from a concentration camp, after being saved by the Nazi from wild wolves, would storm in and embrace them. That is STUPID. A Jewish escapee would embrace the fυcking wolves. (0 out of 10)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I'm not the one that said if it was accepted, it was right.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I'm not the one that said if it was accepted, it was right.

Of course not. What gave you the notion that I took it back?

My standing position is that R felt perfectly safe in the arms of G, she buried her in a rib-crushing hug and felt that she could show her vulnerability by crying, since she was in a place where she wouldn't be judged or laughed at, but rather unconditionally loved and comforted.
Your position is that a Jewish escapee would hug the Nazi that saved him from the wild wolves, to which I say the escapee would hug the wolves.

Before you start with the personal attacks, bear in mind that I am the one who wouldn't take away anything that would give solace to a child, whereas you're perfectly fine with depriving her of the only person she feels safe with.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Your position is that of treating a kidnapper and victimizer as a parent.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

My standing position is that R felt perfectly safe in the arms of G, she buried her in a rib-crushing hug and felt that she could show her vulnerability by crying, since she was in a place where she wouldn't be judged or laughed at, but rather unconditionally loved and comforted.
Your position is that a Jewish escapee from a concentration camp would hug the Nazi that saved him from the wild wolves, to which I say the escapee would hug the wolves.

Bear in mind that I am the one who wouldn't take away anything that would give solace to a child, whereas you're perfectly fine with depriving her of the only person she feels safe with, if it gets you your witch hunt.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You're the one that would leave a child in an abusive relationship because the child didn't know any better.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I would recommend therapy. When your hand aches you go to a doctor not a butcher. But you have your witch hunt and your blood-lust and your crusade for high moral values to consider. People have suffered throughout history for your absolute, unattainable (and terribly misguided) standards, what's one more?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

People have also suffered because people like you refuse to see the signs of abuse.

It's not a witch hunt as Gothel has committed terrible crimes, including kidnappng at the beginning of the movie. You're seriously suggesting therapy for a relationship based on a crime?


If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

People have also suffered because people like you refuse to see the signs of abuse.

Really? Did I enter someone's life and made it worse? I think not.

You on the other hand are all for killing people's mothers if they had broken the law some eighteen years ago. That's how much dedicated you are to your little crusade.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I didn't say you. I said people like you, ignoring anything but the most obvioys signs of abuse.


If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

So how did people "like me", (who think therapy is preferential to killing every child's mother who has broken some law or allegedly practiced less than obvious abuse tactics) made other people suffer?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Also, Rapunzel is not dancing in either of those and if you even bothered to look at her expressions (even with the insults Gothel "takes back", thereby creating a neurotjc person that is Rapunzel with such mixed messages and evidenced by "Best Day Ever), you would see how much Gothel has been hurting this girl emotionally.

The fact that you refuse to see this makes me scared for any real life victims you may come across because you would dismiss their outcry


If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

By not recognizing the signs and allowing the abused to suffer because of it.

[Edit]And btw, I am not rebutting you're argument that I'm advocating killing every child's mother that has broken the law not because I hold that stance but because that leap is completely out of left field.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

..not recognizing the signs and allowing the abused to suffer because of it.

Allowing as in NOT invading the sanctity of someone's home and kidnapping a child from a mother some people claim is "emotionally abusive" in a sense that cannot be possibly determined by harm evident, but only if you install a secret camera, that would still only prove that she failed to follow some people's guidelines and not the harm itself? Yes, absolutely, I would never do such a thing, actions have consequences, the responsible stance is to act only when you're absolutely certain that your actions improve the situation, not when your "ideals" are challenged.

You on the other hand, and I don't mean people "like you", I mean YOU specifically, with your posts undermine the unity of every family out there. Suppose a kid comes home very late at night and his mother slaps him, calls him irresponsible and reckless and sends him to his room (after feeding him and making sure he hadn't got into trouble). Then through his computer he reads your posts and says "what the hell? If a song and a jibe made G abusive then surely my mother is a monster". And after that informs on her to the Gestapo Child Services, useless bureaucrats that care only for covering their asses, and they stick him in a foster home, sharing bunk with a bunch of other mistreated and malcontent kids, who will brutalize him just to vent (pain and violence breeds violence and pain). So congratulations on destroying a family in service to your useless high ideals and misguided impossible standards.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You might have a point, except the kid in your scenario wasn't kidnapped for having magic hair and the mother isn't taking actions to keep the kid trapped like Gothel did with Rapunzel..



If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

If someone brought you to a forest, face to face with a bear, and just shouted "danger, run" while running away, would you consider that they have endangered you or that they had absolute control of their situation?

I would say this person would be pretty stupid to run while facing a bear, as it would only trigger a response in the bear to hunt, and bears are reaaaalllly dangerous. Also, I would have checked the animals we can find in the woods beforehand, and would have equipped in consequences (with bells or such for bears).
However, that's not the point, I'm not a cartoon character, I don't expect the bear to start singing about having a dream or what not either.

Even today you have ghettos and such, where police go only in large numbers, and a person who doesn't belong is almost certainly victimized within (robbed, raped, killed, take your pick).

Sure, it's called territories, aka. what every species have fought for since the dawn of time, I don't deny that. However, we don't know exactly on what kind of territory the inn belongs. It's in the forest, sure, and the men inside look like badasses, but that doesn't make them a place for criminals only, no more than a saloon in Western or Italian restaurants in mafia movies.

He's been told that she knows nothing of the outside world, he can tell that she hasn't ever left her room (since it doesn't even have a door - he is not stupid) and so he sees an opportunity to misrepresent it in her eyes as a really dangerous, unforgiving place.

I disagree, even today with all the information technologies, many many people don't know that much about the world outside their confort zone. And your argument about no door is stupid. She has chairs, wardrobe, clothes, every basic tools, so it's fair to think she has contact with the outside world and is not completely disconnected, even if he doesn't know exactly how her life works.

And I must ask, why is it bad in your opinion for Eugene to take "advantages" of the ignorance of a girl he knows nothing about and it's no problem for Gothel to create fear of the outside in the first place, in a girl she is supposed in your view to care about? Both do the same thing in a way, sure, but Rapunzel has no attachments to Eugene at first and blackmails him in helping her (yeah, it's not like he was trying to "trick" Rapunzel without reasons either, she was doing the same thing), while Gothel uses Rapunzel affection for her own gain and not caring about what Rapunzel really wanted (otherwise, she would have brought her to see the lights herself). She is way more motivated by greed and indifference than Eugene.

I am sorry you see it that way, that is, even though I respect your opinion, I only respect it as someone's opinion, and regard it as a weak, regressive and harmful idea.

That's not my opinion, that's the feeling that many adopted children have expressed. Say what you want about that, but you're imposing your views on people that you or I have not idea what they really feel about being adopted, and I won't go into that, as it's not my place being neither adopted nor having dealt with adopted children (though I had last year an adopted child in one of my classes). I just read some texts on the subject, nothing else.

She cooked for herself - Gothel was out for long periods of time - she cleaned the house they shared, she decorated it the way she so fit

That's no responsibility, that's just good sense and a way to fight boredom, as she had nothing else to do in her tower, so she may as well keep busy. Responsibilities imply consequences if something is not done. What were the consequences if she decided to do nothing?

she was in charge of admitting anyone to the tower through her hair-rope

Anyone being Gothel and... that's it, who we are not sure was even living there the whole time, whoa, so much responsibilities! Eugene didn't use her hair the first time he climbs the tower, your argument is not really valid.

Nobody taught her to curtsy, nobody arranged her marriage to some old rich fat-man, nobody had her practice embroidery, nobody made her believe her sole purpose in life was to warm the bed of her husband and birth him a bunch of sons and become a grandmother by 30, nobody told her to smile and be pleasant and keep her opinions to herself, nobody raised her to be a weakling.

Everything you describe can be apply to so many women from every classes of society that I'm not even going to answer your rant about princesses and the horrible life they lead, while any peasant girl lived through pretty much the same fate. That's what unfortunately being a women was all about, very sadly, doesn't matter where you were from, even if some were luckier than others.

And talk about not being raised as a weakling, no, she was raised as a insecure recluse child who the sole purpose in life was to keep company to her mother until death takes them apart, having no freedom to learn a job, to make friends, to see the world with her own eyes, to have a family of her own if she wishes to. Yeah, great fate. But at least she is fed and warm, right, why would she complain? Life is all about being lied to and manipulated by other people who take advantages of us for their own gains after all. It doesn't matter as long as we are fed, warm and kept busy so we don't go crazy with loneliness and boredom.

In fact she is so strong, so independent and self-reliant (in my opinion through her constant rivalry and competing with poor, old, insecure Gothel) that she braves the outside world on guts alone. That's not a princess mentality, no sir.

Yeah, so independant and self-reliant she had to wait for a complete stranger to venture by complete chance in her tower to dare go outside for the first time. So strong we see her going back and forth between amazing happiness and horrible guilt. Please, if she was anything as you describe her, she would have gone seen the lights or the world long ago, taking advantages of Gothel frequent absences.
Rapunzel is brave, curious, intelligent and has amazing resilience, very strong in her own way indeed, but she is nowhere near independent or self-reliant, as it would defy the point of Gothel keeping her through emotional abuse and manipulation in her tower.

That's not a princess mentality, no sir.

There are all type of princesses, sir. Some were pretty strong in her own ways, some just followed the rules and the norms, it's all about contexts, chances and opportunities, as well as personalities. I find disturbing that you judge a person depending of her social class and all the stereotypes you stick to them and not what they have actually had a chance to accomplish.

Maybe in a parallel universe (or in Britain) a king enjoys less authority than the Queen, but never the princess. The prince is an heir and the princess a tool. That's only saying what I said while speculating upon his intentions, which are unverifiable and irrelevant.

Everything you say is speculation upon Gothel's intention, so why bother having a discussion if you consider yourself that it is unverfiable and irrelevant?

English is not my mother tongue, so I'm not always perfectly at ease while expressing opinions, but I was not talking about "authority" but "freedom", which is different. Kings and queens are more bound by laws and government than princes and princesses for the most part, so enjoy less freedom in their actions and decisions, that's all I was saying.

It would have been way more satisfying if G had to grudgingly accept that she needed R's help and had to make herself useful to keep getting her 'fix', maybe by treating the sick or teaching alchemy or some such.

She was too far gone to be able to admit that she had a problem. The drug analogy is a nice one, it's exactly that, she is addicted to "life" and "beauty", so much she is willing to do anything to get what she needs, and like in many cases, it ends up with death. She was far too deconnected from life to care about anyone but herself.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I would say this person would be pretty stupid to run while facing a bear...having a dream or what not either.

Yes that person was Eugene in the analogy, and by your answer it is obvious to me you either agree that he endangered R or you simply tried to avoid answering realizing it was not a defensible position.

..we don't know exactly on what kind of territory the inn belongs. It's in the forest, sure, and the men inside look like badasses, but that doesn't make them a place for criminals only..

That would defeat the whole purpose of going there. Remember that Eugene is taking her there to scare her, so as far as he knows, the locals would absolutely be hostile. And that is all I need really, I am establishing his moral character not conducting a sociological study of the kingdom.
Oh, and ghettos are not just territories, they are slums. I don't know if you have some romanticized notion of what that means, but they are infested with the criminal element though not outside the territory of the state. So the drug lords and whatnot that call the shots in there are absolutely not the representatives or chieftains of the people inside, they are their pimps.

I disagree, even today with all the information technologies, many many people don't know that much about the world outside their confort zone.

You disagree with what exactly? I say that he's taking advantage of her ignorance to misrepresent the world outside and you say that ignorance is common? That is the definition of a stupid argument, it can't even help you construct your statement, let alone a proof - and I am only saying this because you provoked me, normally I refrain from using words like 'stupid', that convey nothing more than frustration.
Also, no door means that coming and going is extremely problematic, do I have to spell it out to you? But again, WTF are you contesting? I'm not basing his knowledge of her isolation to the door (or lack thereof), she told him herself. Don't raise issues that have nothing to do with your position.

Both do the same thing in a way, sure, but Rapunzel has no attachments to Eugene at first and blackmails him in helping her (yeah, it's not like he was trying to "trick" Rapunzel without reasons either, she was doing the same thing), while Gothel uses Rapunzel affection for her own gain and not caring about what Rapunzel really wanted (otherwise, she would have brought her to see the lights herself). She is way more motivated by greed and indifference than Eugene.

-Blackmails him in the sense that she is not telling him where she hid what he stole? Check the definition for "grand theft". Or did you think a tiara could pass as something he might own?
-G tells her the world is dangerous, to protect her, because she needs her, though not necessarily cares for her. The last time she left it to chance, they took the flower and pulverized it. She still ends up protecting her, even if for selfish reasons. In contrast Eugene exposes her to danger to get rid of her. The motivations so far are the same, but the actions are absolutely NOT. How can I possibly stress more that deliberately exposing someone to danger is WORSE (infinitely so) than protecting them?
-Greed implies that you are seeking something that you can very well do without. I was very careful when I chose the word. Eugene does not NEED the tiara. G absolutely needs R. Maybe check greed in the dictionary too.
-And lastly, I don't need to prove that what G does is acceptable, I only needed to show you that it is no worse than what Eugene does (in fact a lot better), so that was what I did.

That's not my opinion, that's the feeling that many adopted children have expressed.

What I quoted, was you referring to forebears as "true parents" and implying that a person's origin is linked to biology rather than psychology. The latter is also scientifically unsound. Maybe you forgot what you wrote. Language barriers shouldn't prevent you from distinguishing between opinion and fact.

That's no responsibility, that's just good sense and a way to fight boredom..

Ingesting unprepared food will result in food poisoning and death. Failing to maintain a clean household will result in a greater chance of infections and food contamination, leading in time to disease and death. I'm having trouble taking you seriously. Am I distorting what you said?

Also, how does [Eugene climbing on his own] make my argument about [her being responsible for admittance to the tower] invalid? Do you know what invalid means? (Or argument) At the risk of sounding condescending, I have to tell you that an "argument" establishes causality. If you somehow challenge said causality then you prove that the reasoning behind the argument is unsound. It's like I'm saying that the father is responsible for bringing food to his family, and you produce evidence of someone sneaking into the house and leaving behind food. It is irrelevant.

Everything you describe can be apply to so many women from every classes of society that I'm not even going to answer your rant about princesses and the horrible life they lead, while any peasant girl lived through pretty much the same fate.

Then you are clearly not teaching history (I hope). It is interesting that you understand the concept when you apply it to the king (absolutely erroneously of course, for apart from Sparta and the constitutional monarchies of the post-French Revolution era, the King IS the Law) but you pretend ignorance when it hurts your argument. If you need me to spell this out for you, a peasant girl is not slave to decorum, does not secure with her marriage any alliances and does not need to breed an heir to the throne. Peasants did not kill their wives if they turned out to be infertile. Contradict me if you must (and can) but spare me the insults, it's a waste of our time.

Rapunzel is brave, curious, intelligent and has amazing resilience, very strong in her own way indeed, but she is nowhere near independent or self-reliant..

Who DOES she rely upon? Eugene? She saves his life ten times over. Independent means making choices on your own. Self-reliant means being able to realize your goals on your own. Is it clear now? She is independent because she makes the choice to go see the lights despite her mother's warnings and Eugene's scare tactics, and she is self-reliant because she makes it happen without help. Eugene is not really helping her, he is bound to do her bidding, like a tool. Self-reliant doesn't mean omnipotent, she obviously needs a guide if she doesn't know where she needs to go, but she secures his service the same way one buys a ticket. Do you think someone who takes a cab to go some place is not self-reliant?

I find disturbing that you judge a person depending of her social class and all the stereotypes you stick to them and not what they have actually had a chance to accomplish.

Irrelevant. Whatever they accomplished, they did so while struggling with whatever they had to overcome. Obviously every person is different, but your background imprints on you certain behavioral patterns. If you are interested about the mechanism, at the risk of oversimplifying I would say that it stems from following the most efficient way to deal with a situation, long enough that it becomes a habit.
For example abused children are distrustful and manipulating (statistically speaking, not as a mathematical law). It is not their fault, it was just the best way to survive while living under someone's complete control and authority. (Also another reason why it is ludicrous to say that R shows signs of abuse. But everyone is an expert nowadays.)

Everything you say is speculation upon Gothel's intention..

I am shocked at this. I would scour my posts for any conceivable mention to G's intentions, but seeing as how it was your accusation, it is your job to find such mention, to defend your credibility.

I was not talking about "authority" but "freedom", which is different. Kings and queens are more bound by laws and government than princes and princesses for the most part, so enjoy less freedom in their actions and decisions

Actually authority and freedom are one and the same. You might be confused because in democracy, authority is delegated from the voters to the government, so it would seem that there are individuals who enjoy more authority than others. That would be a false assessment, for authority is power and it stems from the people, so the PM or President or King governs in the name of the people. In any case, authority corresponds to rights and rights are the amount of freedom one enjoys. In a democracy everyone enjoys equal freedom and has equal authority, while in monarchy (not the constitutional kind) the King (or Queen) is a privileged citizen, with special rights surpassing that of ordinary people.
Still, all that was probably unnecessary of me, since your statement that monarchs are more bound by laws than their offspring, is out of this world, I would say it is the opposite of true (if that meant anything stronger than plain false). Not only are they bound by law like ordinary folk, but they also can't use (or abuse) their authority to squirm out of their obligations. Did you think they were just bratty teenagers living the good life with no responsibility? Ha! Either they are tools (the princesses) with no more freedom than a horse, or they must somehow secure ascendancy (the princes) so living perpetually in fear and doubt, scheming and preparing. Maybe you think daddy protects them. Well that happens, but it is his right (freedom), not theirs. He can choose to ignore accusations against his chosen heir, and he can also choose to follow the letter of the law against a prince he does not trust.

She was far too deconnected from life to care about anyone but herself.

Detachment (in that sense) would imply that she was blind to practicalities, so she was anything but. I for one didn't see her rampaging like a wild animal, but rather very open to negotiation, even when she was holding all the cards. Perhaps you think negotiation and compromise requires benevolence, but fortunately that is not the case.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Eugene never shows any sign of sexual want/claim. He might have shown infatuation by the kingdom dance scene, but it was pretty damn clear they were in love with each other by the climax.

Rapunzel didn't have freedom of choice as she was under duress. It's important to remember that this is a story of a girl regaining agency that was taken from her. Rapunzel starts this journey abd Flynn helps her complete it. And if you want to talk about hard choices, what about Flynn's to either be healed and live or to die in order to save someone else?

It wasn't Flynn that put he or Rapunzel in chains. It was Gothel that took away both their agency and they each were forced to make a choice because of it.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Eugene never shows any sign of sexual want/claim.

He either loves her "romantically", that is sexually, or he shares a long and meaningful relationship with her. So, yes, sexually.

Rapunzel didn't have freedom of choice as she was under duress.

I already said, that word does NOT mean what you think. Google it or something and stop repeating yourself, we're not in kindergarten.

It wasn't Flynn that put he or Rapunzel in chains.

No, he was the one who actually assaulted and mutilated her.

PS..agency, that too does NOT mean what you think. Are you using an automatic translator or something?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Romantic is not the same as sexual. They can be connected, but they are not the same.

du·ress
d(y)o͝oˈres/Submit
noun
threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.

I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't understand what the word mean.


"No, he was the one who actually assaulted and mutilated her."

Cutting her hair so that she is no longer a prisoner is neither assault nor mutilation.

I"m using agency correctly. You just don't understand the story.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Romantic is not the same as sexual. They can be connected

They are not connected, they are mutually exclusive. But "romantic" (notice the quotation marks), which is what I said referring to the popular interpretation of the word by people who don't read books - let alone classic literature - is actually sexual. Science doesn't recognize the constructs of the mind and artistic creation. You're either in a long loving relationship, or you're infatuated. Sorry. And in any case and interpretation, his feelings do NOT legitimize assaulting R and mutilating her.

..action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment

[Post Edited]
I wasn't asking you to google the word, I was asking you to exercise your reasoning skills to determine its use.
[/Post Edited]

Let me break it down to you:

A(=action) utilized(=brought to bear) against B(=victim)
___________________________________________________________(so that)
B does C(=something against B's will/judgement).

Your best bet is interpreting A as [Eugene bleeding out], B as [Rapunzel] and C as [R been forced to make the promise].
Right?

Well here's where your argument fails; G did NOT stab Eugene so that she could force R to make a promise. It was R herself who took control of the situation and came up with the idea to bargain. So it is NOT G forcing R to make a choice she does not want to, it is R presenting G with a compromise for the good of all. Do you get it now? I sure hope so, there's really no simpler way to explain it.

Cutting her hair so that she is no longer a prisoner is neither assault nor mutilation.

Once again you use intentions. Typical. Let me tell you how debate works. You say his intentions were pure and I say they were not. So we put intentions aside and deal only with the facts.
Now, if your leg is caught in a bear trap and I cut it off, I AM mutilating you. If I do NOT have your consent, I AM assaulting you. That's reality. If that were a real situation, and you sued me, I would absolutely go to jail for it. So, once again, no, you have it wrong.

It was Gothel that took away both their agency

I assume you want to say she took their freedom or power, and power is a synonym to agency, but if they meant the same thing or were used in the same way, we wouldn't really need both words, would we? Agency is NOT something you can take from someone, it is something you can limit. And that is when you use the sociological term Agency, which without a declaration puts it out of context.
Still, the only thing I needed was that key word, limit. You seem capable of researching through wikipedia, so go and look up "Structure and Agency" and see for yourself that the limiting factors to one's freedom (the structure) is always, always present. So again, it was a free choice, at least as free as any one can make.
I too saw a car I liked but couldn't afford, and I didn't steal it, because I would get arrested. That, is structure. It doesn't mean I didn't choose freely. In fact, if you want to get all philosophic about it, Aristotle was the first to propose that a man not partaking of society, and thus absolutely free (from social structure), is either a God or a Beast.

reply share

add reply

formatting help