buffy, politics, economics

[goldenboy]

This one may go nowhere, but I'll throw it out...

Does anyone have any thoughts on Buffy and economics or politics? Sounds boring, I know...

I think most "political" aspects of Buffy, Angel were of the social variety: feminism, human values, the roles of men and women in society. There wasn't much of any overt moralizing. There was "Beer Bad" and "Wrecked/Smashed""”you could almost interpret that as conservative prudery if you wanted. And there was that ep with the paranoid old Christian lady and the Buffy/Riley endless sex thing. That seems like Hollywood liberal fear and loathing of the religious, conservative American heartland.

As far as power and economics goes, there were swipes taken at capitalism and corporate greed. Anya's obsession with free enterprise, money is presented as eccentric, alien innocence. When she says something to the effect of "the greatest evil in the world: communism", are we supposed to agree? Or are we supposed to laugh at how "ridiculous" her statment is? And WR&H is quintessential Americana: the aggressive, opportunistic, "capitalist" law firm. Corporate greed, quest for power. Have a problem in America? Sue somebody!

I tend to think that hey, These are American shows, so the forms and sources of power in America are examined, criticized. The Military/Govt (Initiative), Corporations (WR&H). Despite its horrors historically, communism is almost a complete abstraction in America"”the punchline of a joke.

Buffy's hard to pigeonhole politically. Is it liberal? conservative? libertarian?

I think it tended to lean left in its values and assumptions about human beings, human nature. But, it fought against amorality, postmod nihilism in an almost heroic, old-fashioned "conservative" way.

 

[LadyLavinia]

A Buffyverse essayist once pointed out that the series tends to focus more on gender issues, while barely acknowledging racial issues. She also pointed out that there are forums of entertainment that tend to focus more on racial issues, than on gender issues. She stated that it is rare for any form of entertainment to focus upon both issues.

 

[SlayerThe]

I think that sometimes you can read too much into a character's statement.

Anya obviously despised communism and Marxism because she loves money. Under communism, Anya would not be able to fulfill her capitalist dreams of wealth; she would have the same salary as everyone else. While this statement may be true for Anya, I doubt the writers actually meant for this to represent their values.

However, some of the storyline and quotes have obvious hidden meanings. Joss is famous for this. As this rest of Hollywood is with their liberal-bias. Is it unfair to those not as progressive or conservatives? Of course, but all media is biased to an extent.

In the end, I would say Buffy is a more liberal show; not just because of Joss' political afflication, but because Buffy broke barriers and broke the mold for typical superheroes. BtVS also experimented with interracial dating, homosexuality, addicitions, and various sexual encounters especially with Buffy and Spike in S6.

 

[Xander]

Personally I'm glad we had a character who was so pro-Capitalism. I know perhaps it shouldn't go on, and it isn't good for people in third world countries but I'm sick of people saying "Blah capitalism sucks, we should have communism." Most of the audience will be benefitting from capitalism. It would be like complaining about having good health.

 

[nerd4hire]

Also I think Anya is happy to see herself as a Capitalist, and an American, because it gives her a sense of belonging and identity.

This is one of the things Anya struggles with throughout the series. If she isn't a Vengence Demon, who is she?

 

[JollyApe]

Anya obviously despised communism and Marxism because she loves money. Under communism, Anya would not be able to fulfill her capitalist dreams of wealth; she would have the same salary as everyone else.

But we shouldn't forget that Anya clearly couldn't care less about politics until she started working at the Magic Box. Just look at her part in the Russian revolution. I think it's like n4h says, she just wanted some place to belong and after all she learned the american values by playing Life so what's one to expect from her.

Otherwise I think the show is very liberal in the way it's promoting the individual, but there are also traces of communism or socialism or whatever you wanna call it, because we you don't work together you won't reach your goal. I think the show is a great mix of idealogical beliefs and you can't just put a label on it. Basically it's a mix of all of the writers personal beliefs.

But if we have to put a label on it, it has to be the feminist one. Probably the reason why I fell in love with the show so completely was because it ws one of the first to show feminism as something good and not something to be afraid of.

 

[goldenboy]

Anya's "eccentricity" is like that of a child, right? I can recall being eight or nine and seeing a fifty dollar bill that my aunt had given to me. It was for me to save, eventually start a bank account. But I got to look at it, hold it. I felt like a millionaire, had never seen that much money...

Anya doesn't strike me as greedy, materialistic in an "adult" way. She was already starting to grow into a normal, responsible capitalist before the show ended.

Her comments about "a victorious communist revolution" was just pretty much a gag written by the Buffy writers it seems. She had killed some of the Romanovs as a vengence demon, is that right? Can't remember.

It seems like "Buffy" was sort of pro-responsible-liberal-capitalism you might say. Giles takes great pride in owning The Magic Box, and justifiably so. Anya strives to be human, American. And she takes a stab at the French, cause that's what Americans do! LoL. The Buffy writers are satirizing American attitudes more than mocking the French.




Found a gigantic attempt to analyze Buffy in terms of politics, values. Just skimmed it. It finds examples of liberalism, conservatism, individualism, collectivism, almost everything. Here's one argument for anti-capitalism...


"In Buffy and Angel, there is a persistent association of capitalist values "” among them excessive self-interest, cutthroat competition, the accumulation of wealth, the rationalization of production, and the commodification of labor "” with literal inhumanity. Following a long left-wing tradition of depicting economic exploiters as "bloodsuckers" and vampires as privileged figures exploiting a defenseless populace (such as Bram Stoker's castle-dwelling nobleman, feeding off the peasants who should be under his feudal protection[15]), the association of demonism and capitalist values is often made quite explicitly and directly. The only really avid capitalist among the main cast members is the once and future vengeance demon Anya, whose greed and failure to master human behavior have been running jokes since the end of season 3. In "Doublemeat Palace," Anya even states her motivations for fighting evil, shown to be extremely grudging and unsteady over the course of the series, in narrowly capitalist terms: "Supervillains want reward without labor! To make things come easy. It's wrong! Without labor there can be no payment and vice versa! The country cannot progress!"



Found the overall conclusion interesting....

"This insistence on a hero who stays connected to her society and draws strength from that, rather than being weakened by it, is somewhat unique in the superhero genre. In the movies, at least, Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man keep much more secret secret identities and shy away from relationships lest their loved ones be threatened. Buffy (and Angel) fall apart and get beaten when they go it alone. Social capital is their secret weapon, and that gives us the key to understanding the political message, such as it is, of their adventures."


http://jeff.pasleybrothers.com/writings/buffy.htm

 

[eponinethen]

But if we have to put a label on it, it has to be the feminist one. Probably the reason why I fell in love with the show so completely was because it ws one of the first to show feminism as something good and not something to be afraid of.

And it doesn't sell itself as a feministic show. It's not disgustingly obvious. It wasn't like they created a new feministic show and the only point of it is to be political and feministic. It is feministic in a "normal" way. It's a really really great TV show, and oh it's also really feministic. Which is also what I realized and started loving after starting to watch this show. But before I started watching it, I had no idea. I thought it was pretty sexist actually (yes I was a fool, but still). It's not too much, in that way, it's not trying to be all politically correct, in the silly way some things can be.

And also I gotta say that I really agree with this:

Personally I'm glad we had a character who was so pro-Capitalism. I know perhaps it shouldn't go on, and it isn't good for people in third world countries but I'm sick of people saying "Blah capitalism sucks, we should have communism." Most of the audience will be benefitting from capitalism. It would be like complaining about having good health.

I'm so sick of that too. I'm not a huge fan of capitalism really, but I like money and when we live in a capitalist society I so understand Anya for loving the money 'cause I do too.

 

[doppelgänger2]

And it doesn't sell itself as a feministic show. It's not disgustingly obvious. It wasn't like they created a new feministic show and the only point of it is to be political and feministic. It is feministic in a "normal" way. It's a really really great TV show, and oh it's also really feministic. Which is also what I realized and started loving after starting to watch this show. But before I started watching it, I had no idea. I thought it was pretty sexist actually (yes I was a fool, but still). It's not too much, in that way, it's not trying to be all politically correct, in the silly way some things can be.

I know exactly what you mean. My thought on the show used to be "it's this stupid blonde chick doing stupid cartwheels and slaying vampires in a "sexy" way" even though I hadn't watched more than five minutes of an episode from season 2 I believe. I later learned that BtVS is the exact opposite of that. What made me give the show a chance was a friend of a friend who I kinda looked up to. I thought that if she liked the show, than maybe it's good after all. The first time I sat down to see an episode I saw this super cool brown haired chick kicking some ass, getting some and getting gone. I was like: WHOA!
The show is subtle in a way, when it comes to the feministic message it's sending out. I like the fact that they're not selling the show as feminist and instead just make it a natural part of the show. You don't have any feminist and/or gay stereotypes just to prove a point, and they can do something as "non-feminist" as the whole Spike/Buffy situation in season 6 without making any excuses. Because it's not about moral or politics or anything, it's just life and life is certainly not politically correct. That's what makes this show so friggin great and not this never ending moralizing lecture like some other shows (I'm thinking 7th heaven).

I'm so sick of that too. I'm not a huge fan of capitalism really, but I like money and when we live in a capitalist society I so understand Anya for loving the money 'cause I do too.

Agree too. Unfortunately money rules this world, and money buys a lot of pretty little think I want and need. But then again, as I don't believe in market economy, I wish you could just get the stuff you want without the money-fuss.

 

[eponinethen]

You don't have any feminist and/or gay stereotypes just to prove a point, and they can do something as "non-feminist" as the whole Spike/Buffy situation in season 6 without making any excuses. Because it's not about moral or politics or anything, it's just life and life is certainly not politically correct.

Yup, totally. That's what's so great. It's perfect in being just perfect and inperfect enough. (Gah it's perfect!)

That's what makes this show so friggin great and not this never ending moralizing lecture like some other shows (I'm thinking 7th heaven).

Lol, I was watching 7th Heaven today and it's so friggin funny! Hehe, but yea, totally never ending moralizing lecture (but that is funny, eh).

But then again, as I don't believe in market economy, I wish you could just get the stuff you want without the money-fuss.

I don't believe in that either.. But I don't believe in "planned economy" (or whatever it's called), so I don't know what the solution would be. At all.

 

[Jill_Valentine]

I don't consider the overall intent and effect of Anya's pro-Capitalist ranting to be pro-Capitalist. Anya was always sort of a caricature - she just about overdoes her attempts to sound and act like a person. I figure it to be a little like Bill's take on Mrs. Tommy Plympton.

Anya Christina Emmanuela Jenkins is Anyanka's attempt to be one of us. She's vain, shallow and relentlessly materialistic. She's a desperate housewife in the making. Anya looks around to see what modern humans value, and sees that more than anything else in the world, we value wealth. Above family, above community, above faith. I see it as sort of backhanded social satire: to an outsider looking in, we're just money hungry idiots. To Anya, that's our defining attribute - Greed. The first thing she does to become a convincing person is to embrace that ideal completely.

Besides, if we're going that way about it, what of Anne? Where Buffy leads an enslaved people to revolt against their oppressors with a hammer and hunga-munga-my-foot sickle? :evilgrin:

Communism was born from a noble ideal, but it's forever doomed to fail because it demands something that I don't think we're capable of. Levellng the playing field is a lovely idea, but in practice the guy in an army dress uniform always gets hold of a Goodyear Blimp. Capitalism is a far from perfect system, but it's the best we have as yet. I'm not deleriously pro-Capitalist, but I'd be lying if I said I don't occasionally hug the money as I put it into the toy shop safe.

The political flavour of Buffy, I think, is a stew of the best attributes of established ideologies. Live and let live, but defend the defenceless. Follow the rules faithfully, unless they're stupid. Believe in your own abilities, but don't underestimate the power of a group.

 

[goldenboy]

I agree the power of the group, cooperation is one of the main messages of the 'verse. Buffy obviously figured that out by the end. Cordelia was always trying to pound that into Angel's thick skull. He finally got the message.

With superheros that's unusual, like that political analysis was saying. The X-Men work as a group, yet they feel ostracized, freakish, not a full part of society. Other solo superheros, pretty much the same thing.

In the Spider-Man movies, a lot of people think MJ is a ditz, useless. Yet she's the one that ultimately brings Peter in from the cold so to speak. Completely cutting yourself off from humanity isn't necessarily the way to save it.

Seems like it's often women reminding men not to wander off and get too angsty, isolated.

Although interestingly, Xander often took on that role in the 'verse too.

 

[JollyApe]

If you look at it as a whole Xander was often the gender bender. He often had to play the role that most of us didn't associate with men. During season 7 he was the one trying to keep things together. Sure he was all manly and got to do it while carpenting, but still that role is often preserved for a female.

Same thing at end of season 6. He was the one talking her of the edge. Showing that there is something worth living for and that love can overcome a hell of a lot of sorrow. Again that is often something that the female gets to do to the hero.

 

[LadyLavinia]

I wonder what Joss Whedon would make of this article about the lack of masculinity in Hollywood:

Game Boys and Manly Men

 

[goldenboy]

That manly man article was great, LL. I always am feeling like the Classic Hollywood scruffy tough guys are forever gone from the screens. They have to import them now (Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman).



Alright, I may be perceived as a reactionary right-wing curmudgeon with this following piece, but I loved this article...

"...Ever since America began to wean itself off the sociological junk-food of victimization and the much-maligned Culture of Blame, the landscape has been steadily overspread by an antithetical conceit "” loosely bracketed as "empowerment" "” whose preachments can be summarized as follows: Don't let anyone take away your dreams. Everything you need to succeed is right there inside you. Believe it, achieve it..."

"...Lost in all the adulation is the downside of this tireless effort to uplift. The overselling of personal empowerment "” the hyping of hope "” may in fact be the great unsung irony of latter-day American culture, destined to disappoint as surely as the pity party it was supposed to replace. And in a far more insidious fashion.

Though many of the consequences here are easily missed or confound measurement, the literal and figurative poster children can be found in America's schools, whose crusade to imbue kids with that most slippery of notions, self-esteem, has been plainly disastrous. It was once theorized that a rose-colored self-image would itself help students achieve greatness, even if the mechanisms required to instill self-worth undercut traditional notions of scholarship. In the intervening years, declining SAT scores and the generally dismal performance of American students in global rankings of competency in math and the hard sciences have shown that academic greatness is not what self-esteem promotes. (In 1998, the Amsterdam-based International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement released its Third International Mathematics and Science Study, involving twelfth graders from 23 nations. In overall scientific literacy, the U.S. placed fourth from the bottom, besting only such historic hotbeds of scientific innovation as Lithuania, Cyprus, and South Africa. In advanced math, the U.S. outpaced only Austria. In physics, American kids finished dead last.)..."

"...The larger point is that, with the gods of empowerment cheering in the background, society has embraced concepts like confidence and self-esteem despite scant evidence that they're reliably correlated with positive outcomes. The work of legitimate psychology notables Roy Baumeister and Martin Seligman indicates that often, high self-worth is a marker for negative behavior, as diagnosed in sociopaths and drug kingpins. Furthermore, self-esteem may be expressed in the kind of braggadocio "” "I'm fine just the way I am, thank you" "” that actually inhibits personal growth..."

http://nationalreview.com/comment/salerno200505120810.asp

 

[LadyLavinia]

That manly man article was great, LL. I always am feeling like the Classic Hollywood scruffy tough guys are forever gone from the screens. They have to import them now (Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman).



Alright, I may be perceived as a reactionary right-wing curmudgeon with this following piece, but I loved this article...

"...Ever since America began to wean itself off the sociological junk-food of victimization and the much-maligned Culture of Blame, the landscape has been steadily overspread by an antithetical conceit "” loosely bracketed as "empowerment" "” whose preachments can be summarized as follows: Don't let anyone take away your dreams. Everything you need to succeed is right there inside you. Believe it, achieve it..."

"...Lost in all the adulation is the downside of this tireless effort to uplift. The overselling of personal empowerment "” the hyping of hope "” may in fact be the great unsung irony of latter-day American culture, destined to disappoint as surely as the pity party it was supposed to replace. And in a far more insidious fashion.

Though many of the consequences here are easily missed or confound measurement, the literal and figurative poster children can be found in America's schools, whose crusade to imbue kids with that most slippery of notions, self-esteem, has been plainly disastrous. It was once theorized that a rose-colored self-image would itself help students achieve greatness, even if the mechanisms required to instill self-worth undercut traditional notions of scholarship. In the intervening years, declining SAT scores and the generally dismal performance of American students in global rankings of competency in math and the hard sciences have shown that academic greatness is not what self-esteem promotes. (In 1998, the Amsterdam-based International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement released its Third International Mathematics and Science Study, involving twelfth graders from 23 nations. In overall scientific literacy, the U.S. placed fourth from the bottom, besting only such historic hotbeds of scientific innovation as Lithuania, Cyprus, and South Africa. In advanced math, the U.S. outpaced only Austria. In physics, American kids finished dead last.)..."

"...The larger point is that, with the gods of empowerment cheering in the background, society has embraced concepts like confidence and self-esteem despite scant evidence that they're reliably correlated with positive outcomes. The work of legitimate psychology notables Roy Baumeister and Martin Seligman indicates that often, high self-worth is a marker for negative behavior, as diagnosed in sociopaths and drug kingpins. Furthermore, self-esteem may be expressed in the kind of braggadocio "” "I'm fine just the way I am, thank you" "” that actually inhibits personal growth..."

http://nationalreview.com/comment/salerno200505120810.asp

Frankly, I disagreed with the article. I saw no reason why Hollywood needs overtly masculine types for actors. I guess the article seemed to reek of sexism, to me.


What's wrong with encouraging confidence and self-esteem?

 

[goldenboy]

Well, I'm just thinking that anything can be taken to excess. I think feminism and boosting girls confidence was fantastic and necessary. But think the self-esteem movement of the 90's got out of hand, for everybody.

Some weird things started to happen. Some people still think for example that we shouldn't keep score during little league baseball games, lest we damage kid's egos. I find that bizarre, personally. Kids aren't delicate hothouse flowers, they want to keep score. Competition is good, healthy, I think. And not everybody can be good at everything. It's good to figure out what you do and don't have aptitudes for. I sucked at most sports, math, other things. It didn't crush my ego. Made me search for my true direction, abilities.

I don't recall ever even hearing the terms self-esteem, empowerment growing up. I guess I'm saying encouragement is a key ingredient, but teaching humility and gratititude and intense hard work is just as important. I worry that that gets shoved to the side with the esteem movement.

If you're constantly trying to puff up kids' egos, protect them from the world, can they get a little soft, complacent, or even self-absorbed? Can it lead to extreme individualism, break down social cohesion?

Is self-esteem always tied to goodness, morality? That article's noting that sociopaths often have the highest self-esteem was interesting. I can recall at my gradeschool, the kids that seemed to be the most "confident" were actually the biggest, most obnoxious a-holes. Pushed others around.

Joss's 'verse is another case in point. Who felt the most highly of themselves? Faith, when she first came to Sunnydale seemed to be the most empowered, confident chick of all time. Also kind of selfish, out of control. Glory had supreme confidence, self-esteem.

I'm just saying There should be balance. "Postive" self-esteem needs to be earned, tied to good behavior. Needs to be tied to humility, gratitude, respect, hard work. Buffy had all those things in the end.

 

[goldenboy]

Now here's the opposite extreme in the culture, in terms of sports:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050512/REVIEWS/50503016

psychotic, overcompetetive "stage parents"

 

[eponinethen]

Well, I'm just thinking that anything can be taken to excess. I think feminism and boosting girls confidence was fantastic and necessary. But think the self-esteem movement of the 90's got out of hand, for everybody.

Oh, this discussion again 😀

Okay, I somewhat agree with what you're saying here, but I still think there's much more to it.
Yes, some children who have a really high self-esteem can be almost mean to other kids. But then again, doesn't everyone say that those who pick on the other kids are really the insecure ones? It's a cliché but also at least partly true. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just know how important this was for me, growing up. I had the lowest self-esteem ever, and it's not like my parents/teachers didn't try to make it higher but well that never worked.. But I really wish it had, and I'm sure there's some way...
I don't know, I just think it's a bit dangerous when you start saying that just because we put a lot of effort in something (like making children's self-esteem higher) for a while, it's not as important to work on that anymore.

And no, children are not delicate flowers. Most children that is. And it's not the self-absorbed a-hole-y kids that need to have their egos puffed up, it's the rest of them. And even if they're not the majority (I don't know, it's possible that they are), it is pretty important. I know that sports scared the hell out of me when I was a kid, I was terrified of being the reason my team lost when we played football in school in fourth grade. And I know there would have been a difference if they wouldn't have kept score. And I happened to good in school, so I wouldn't have minded getting grades, but I'm glad we didn't 'cause I know that would have made things a lot more stressy and difficult for some of my classmates.

Joss's 'verse is another case in point. Who felt the most highly of themselves? Faith, when she first came to Sunnydale seemed to be the most empowered, confident chick of all time. Also kind of selfish, out of control. Glory had supreme confidence, self-esteem.

This, I'm gonna have to disagree on. Glory was an evil hell god, so I'm even gonna go into that. But Faith... I think she is a typical example of one of those insecure ones, who is acting like she has a hell of a lot of self-esteem. Sure, she was secure when it came to some things, her ability to act secure, her flirting-ability and her sexyness, and some other things. But in the beginning, season 3, it's pretty obvious to me that she is extremely insecure when it comes to many of the things that really matters. And I'm pretty sure she didn't grow up in an environment where people tried to give her high self-esteem and so on.


Okey so yea, I agree with you about many things, I'm not at all saying high self-esteem is everything. But to me it's a pretty huge and important thing. And I don't think we should make it less important.

 

[goldenboy]

Eponinethen, you're right. This is an old conversation. It's been going on for decades in psychology. The "success formula" is complicated. It seems difficult to assess Faith's whole psychology because we never really get her full backstory, do we? Was she abused as a kid, abandoned? Don't know. She projected confidence, arrogance when she first came to Sunnydale. Was she just projecting, or was she actually confident, arrogant?

What if the old-fashioned, straightforward interpretation is in fact correct? What if the psychologists had it wrong? I'd argue that based on her behavior, Faith actually had very high self-esteem when she came to Sunnydale. Excessively so. Because of that she was reckless, self-absorbed. She actually was knocked down a peg or two by her own actions. Her esteem, opinion of herself was then lowered and that actually led to a more humble, "more good" human being. Of course, in between those two states, a lot of extreme self-hatred and destruction occurred.



Found another piece:

"...Traditionally, bullies and other "toughs" have been profiled by psychologists as people with hidden feelings of inadequacy, a low self-esteem masked by a nasty, even vicious, exterior.

Norway's Dan Olweus was among the first psychologists to show that bullies typically have less anxiety and more confidence in themselves than the average person. In his 1997 book, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, Baumeister cites his and others' research showing that aggressive people typically have favorable-even dramatically inflated-views of themselves.

The upshot of all the best research done on the subject of aggression and self-esteem is that the relationship is nothing remotely like what so many have assumed for so long. "Generally speaking, people with low self-esteem tend to be shy, modest, self-effacing, reluctant to take risks, unsure about themselves, and likely to blame themselves for failure," Baumeister wrote. "Aggressive, violent people are not like that...."

"...the research shows that high self-esteem can make people more resilient, make them keep on plugging after initially failing at something. That attribute can plausibly contribute to what the research says is the number-one benefit for developing a good self-image. "The main thing self-esteem does for us, apparently, is to make us happier people," Baumeister said. "It makes us feel good, at least for a while..."

"...Is the pursuit of happiness alone ample justification for keeping the self-esteem enterprise going? Baumeister and his co-authors don't think so. Ultimately, kids who are brought up in an environment where there's no clear link between personal accomplishment and self-worth pay a hefty emotional and even physical price down the road, they argue. Sudden doses of reality come as a real shock to students who lack the emotional fortitude for dealing effectively with failure or challenges to their lofty opinions of themselves. Such rude awakenings might drive kids to violence-even Columbine-level violence-when confronted with rejection or proof of their own inadequacies.

Or so says Martin Seligman, an outspoken critic of the self-esteem movement. Seligman considers self-esteem exercises a menace to society and would like to see school-based self-esteem programs shut down. "What I think has gone wrong," Seligman says, "is that we now think we should inject self-esteem directly into our young people, as opposed to producing warranted self-esteem, which I believe comes from doing well with the people you love, doing well in sports, [and] doing well in school."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4136/is_200502/ai_n9483005


"”But, maybe the model I'm using is wrong. Was Faith a bully or was she the one bullied as a kid? The school shooter kids typically have been bullied. They're lashing out. Is Faith more like the obnoxious bully or the victimized schoolkid lashing out? Like I said, it's frustrating 'cause we don't have her full story. That Kakistos guy apparently traumatized her...