#character analysis de ysblf

[youwontlikethisblog]

Armando Mendoza: A Brief Analysis

Hey, how are you? It's been a while. This will be a lil update so if you want you can skip down to the [GREEN] to start with the post :)

It's been a hectic few months. I finally decided to stop setting it aside and get real about my writing and begun the tedious task of editing the final draft of my original manuscript. I'm a perfectionist(Although if we're considering my posts about YSBLF as an example of that, than you wouldn't expect it lol. I suppose that's what I get for writing post when I haven't had a lick of sleep and don't stop to take breaks while writing the posts and then, half brain dead, I sit down to "edit" the grammar). When it comes to something that truly means a lot to me I do not feel satisfied until it has reached my exact expectations. I've made a few updates on my writing and how it's been going. There's some exciting development on it but I want to wait a little more to be able to fully talk about it and share the news with y'all.

That being said; I still have not continued watching YSBLF since the last time I did a post about the show, y'know, life and all but without further ado, here is the post :)

Armando Mendoza: An Objective and A Not So Deep Dive

Now that I've had some time and space away from the show, I can look at the characters in a more objective manner. I've been considering a lot of things regarding them and I feel like this post might come right out of left field —seeing how I normally seem to "defend" Armando, or some might assume I do— and this post will most likely not do that. In reality, it won't. It'll rightfully so call him out.

See, the stark difference between Marcela and Armando, not personality wise, but writing wise, is that Marcela doesn't really have a backstory. Her past is pretty blurry and the very few clear images we get of it always paint her to be the exact same person. However with Armando his past, while also not clear, is more visible and a little bit more precise than hers. In the post I made for Marcela I wasn't as empathetic as I should have been.

Marcela's past is basically unknown and the very little information we do get doesn't paint her in the best of lights. However, that doesn't mean that she deserved or that what Armando was doing to her was okay. I should have said that in her post. I placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that while Marcela had a right to feel what she did, she didn't have a right to act the way she was. Feelings are valid, actions are not.

Well same goes for Armando.

Armando could have been dating a helicopter as a girlfriend, someone who was possessive and controlling of him, but that doesn't justify nor excuse his horrible behavior towards her. While yes, one could assume that his cheating had to do with his lack of control with life, it still doesn't justify or excuse it. Nothing, ever, justifies cheating.

As I said in the Marcela post: This isn't about her so I won't be explaining her reasoning, her behavior, her actions, or anything of those sorts, therefore, don't take it as me excusing her bad behavior. It's simply being mentioned.

With modern times come modern solutions. Nowadays it's very easy to be able to pick up your phone and google something, read a self-help book, find the root of your childhood trauma and even a therapist. Child development isn't easy to understand to the naked eye and you have to have years of experience on the subject to fully understand how point A gets to point B. I'm no expert of it, just done some basic research on certain topics of childhood trauma and such so while I might have some form of understanding, it's not an exactitude on the subject.

We can estimate that Armando had emotionally absent parents, witnesses how his parents turned their backs on his sister for falling in love with a poor man and the way the elite society they're a part of was about the whole subject. How do we draw to this conclusion?

His father doesn't even know what he went to college for or what he got his degree on. His mother coddles him, only when he acts to her standards, enables a horrible relationship that does not benefit neither her biological son or her basically-adopted daughter. Quite the contrary the show does a good job at showing the drastic parallels of Betty's relationship with her parents compared to Armando and his parents. Consider the fact that any time Armando is on screen with his parents they only talk about two things: His relationship with Marcela and the company.

They don't sound like the warmest of parents do they?

I talk a lot about being a writer and how knowing your characters IS one of the most crucial and important parts of developing your story. I mention this because when you write characters, fleshed out ones, you have at the very least an understanding of their past. Not an exact one, but an understanding in order to have them say the things they do and act the way they do.

Roberto was always cold towards Armando, from the very start. He clearly showed signs that he didn't very much care for him. He cared more about the company, his wife, Daniel, Marcela, Beatriz, and then, at the very end, Armando. With obvious reasons we understand why Roberto didn't trust Armando. It's always been told that he's always been a player, doesn't commit, and is immature, plus with the devil on his shoulder he calls a best friend, Armando isn't the most trustworthy.

Yet, that does not excuse Roberto's lousy father role in his son's life. Children need strong(by that I mean emotionally, physically, mentally, and spiritually present) male role models in their lives, especially father figures. I've said it before that it could be a possibility that Armando's childhood was very much with an emotionally distant father. This creates the perfect breeding ground for a child to constantly feel like they must excel in every part of their lives(perfectionism), have an anxious attitude, a fear of losing the love of their loved ones if they aren't excelling(low self-esteem), and other difficulties. Basically this ball of fear, resentment, anger, perfectionism, and anxiousness(being avoidant) . These issues on their own bring their separate problems that mixed together make for an unlikeable person. I don't know about you, but this sounds a lot like Armando.

Of course there's people who grew up with emotionally unavailable parents and grew up to be fully companionate, kind, loving, and wonderful people. That's the tricky thing about trauma, not one size fits all. Just because two people grew up the same doesn't mean they'll deal with it the same way.

Emotionally absent parents equal physically absent parents when it comes to their children's development.

His mother was the same, though, unlike Roberto, Margarita did love Armando and was present but very conditional with her love. You can have examples of this when Armando and Marcela would be fighting. She always took Marcela's side and pressured Armando to continue the relationship. She also guilted Marcela into staying with Armando. She was never there to comfort her son when he was at his lowest or even before. She was just only ever present in his life and made an effort to talk to him when it came to his engagement to Marcela. Plus, the whole causing Camila to divorce her husband and move to a different country fiasco.

Armando did a fine job of taking after his parents, as he is a perfect reflection of them.

There's one thing that Armando said that has ran laps around my brain for a while now; "I know I did things wrong, damnit I always do!" outside of el Meson.

He's aware of the things he does, even if it's at the heat of the moment, Armando is a self-aware jester, who never cared enough to change until he lost everything.

This change, while outside forces moved him to change, were not the reason why he changed. That's another message that is lost with this show.

Armando didn't change because he fell in love with Betty. Armando only learned to be brave enough to be the person he always aspired to be, because he fell in love. Doesn't matter who he fell in love with, he simply did. The love he received from Betty only taught him to be brave enough to love the same.

The same way Betty was naïve to how depraved any man can be, whether educated or not, rich, poor, or from a "high" society or lower class, Armando too was naïve to what was actually good and bad because he never really had parents that cared enough to teach him. Now this in no way frees Armando from accountability. Lets not forget that the whole point of his personality at the beginning of the story is that he sucks, and is a horrible man.

[TAKE A BREAK IF YOU NEED ONE.]

Sex addiction is a serious addiction. As I've mentioned before, in one of my earliest posts, that Armando shows to have signs of it but I'm no expert so I wouldn't say he does. For example, his affairs often cause issues in his relationship, his professional life, and for himself. While he's aware of all the risk that these affairs cause in his life, he still part takes in them! These are all signs that he has an addiction. However, I don't think that was the intent behind this part of his personality when he was being written, simply there to show how he was a Casanova of sorts.

These are all things I've already talked about in different posts but I wanted to dive a little bit deeper here in case some people haven't read those.

Let's get to the real juicy stuff now.

Armando's horrible, terrible, abusive, treatment of women.

Yeah Armando defended Aura, he wasn't a misogynist, and he didn't abuse his position of power nor assaulted any women(not talking about the constant harassment of Betty after she found the letter yet). Still, Armando was abusive.

He constantly manipulated women into believing he was serious about them just to use them, he gaslit —not only Marcela but all his side chicks— people in order to control a situation, and at times even got physical. Let's not forget the hair pulling, choking, and dragging of Karla, Marce, and Larson. Let's not forget Betty! While he never hit them, the way he acted, was not okay!

Armando was aggressive, he was controlling, and he was manipulative. God, he was awful!

There's no excuse or even a justification for him in this part.

While you can argue that his intentions weren't to harm those girls, he still did it. The moment they didn't behave to his standards, he removed his "love"(infatuation) from them. Does that sound similar to a pattern? like someone else? (Margarita).

However Marcela for this instance was a victim of his. His constant cheating made her so controlling, resentful, and bitter.

A cycle starts somewhere. Whether it be Marce being possessive from the get go of their relationship or Armando cheating first, somewhere the cycle began.

One thing I want to make clear is that both Marcela and Armando were abusive and victims of each other.

From the start of the novela Armando isn't a good person. He's horrible. However, he was meant to be charismatic, which would cause people to over-look those red flags.

There's a lot of sides to Armando's character and that's what makes him complex.

There's obvious reason as to why Armando, in a sense, has some redeeming qualities compared to the people he's surrounded by. You know, he feels remorse for the way he acts, especially towards Marce and Betty. He feels the pressure of not letting his parents down and the responsibility of keeping people employed. However, even if it's remorse, the problem always lays in the fact that he doesn't truly change.

In this half of the post I'm focusing more on his relationship with Marcela.

I've talked about reactionary abuse, toxic relationships, abusive tactics, and patterns in all of my posts regarding Armando and Marcela. I've explained in a simplified way and yet I feel like some people either reject the idea or only want to blame one party.

What makes Marcela and Armando's relationship toxic and not D.A. is that they both enable each other and their bad habits. See, even if Armando were the one that started the conflicts, Marcela also acts out abusively. Basically they up one another in any fight. As if saying "Oh so you're going to threaten to leave? Fine! Then I'll ruin your life! If you leave me it would be like losing my parents all over again." while the other responds with "Marrying you is simply a favor to you! If you speak up about this than the wedding is off!" get the idea?

Marcela enables Armando by acting out in her rage, further pushing him to act out in his cheating and gaslighting. Armando enables Marcela by his cheating and gaslighting. They both feed the cycle and reject any accountability for their actions.

What makes this drastically different in what a typical D.A situation in where the abused reacts abusive(aka mirrors their abuser) is that they BOTH switch sides. One moment Armando is the abuser, the one with the upper hand in the relationship and then, the next, Marcela is the one that is being abusive and in control. Often times they bounce off each other. It's not Armando constantly and only being the Abuser with Marcela mirroring him. They BOTH DO THIS.

However, at the very least, Armando at the end of the series took accountability and broke the cycle.

When you write two explosive and complex characters meant to be together you have to separate them from each other. By this I mean that Marcela is her own person away from Armando, just like Armando is his own person away from Marcela. Together, however, they are a volcanic eruption. While, for Marcela, this can translate to just being passionate and intense, for Armando it can be an absolute tragedy that must continue in order to keep every party of people in his life "happy" while in the end, at the very least, he has his affairs to give him something.

Together Armando and Marcela are a horrible duo because all they do is cause harm to one another. That's what makes their relationship toxic, not one sided abuse.

One can argue that the ONLY reason Marcela acted this way was because of Armando, meaning, if you remove the cause of the problem, the issue would be resolved, right?

Not entirely as we're often shown and told that Marcela is this way with everyone. She keeps up with public appearances for the sake of their elite society but she treats people outside of her economic class poorly, en fin she treats anyone that isn't to her standards poorly and inhumanly. What does this tell us? That she on her own is toxic and abusive so even if she were in a healthy relationship, her prejudice and expectations of things causes her to be this way.

Armando was a cause of the problems in the relationship! That's where the tricky part and what makes them complex, is.

We know that Armando and Marcela were basically forced to be together, or groomed. From a young age all they've heard is how they must be together to unite the families, how her dead parents wanted that more than anything. That's placing a lot of pressure on two people.

However, even if this were the case(which it is) Armando's go about and treatment of Marcela was not okay. For the sake of this post let's say that Armando is the reason Marcela is the way she is(meaning we ignore her personality all together). He caused her to be possessive, controlling, toxic, and cold. Marcela was once a kind and sweet person who did nothing but show devotion and adoration for him, and Armando's constant cheating and lying pushed her to be this way.

Armando could have handled it a lot better. If he felt obligated to be with Marcela from the get go, he could have at the very least, like the very minimum treated her as a human being, and not cheated. That's the very least she deserved.

Obviously, we don't know how the start of their relationship was like. All we know is that when they got engaged that he made a promise to Marcela to be faithful and that Marcela knew about the affairs. We know that Armando and Marcela at least had somewhat of a "happy" relationship, despite the affairs and fights they'd get into. (Which this on it's own establishes that Marcela was fully aware of Armando's unfaithfulness before their engagement, that and his promises to be faithful show us that it's been a problem for years.)

Let's consider this; If Armando fell for Betty when she was ugly SIMPLY because of the adoration and devotion she had for him, why didn't he do that with Marcela at the start?

Had she held this devotion and adoration for Armando from the start it would imply that Armando would have fallen for her, same way he did with Betty, and therefore Marcela would have never turned out to be the way she did, right?

Let's be honest here. That's the sole reason why Armando even began to have some sort of confused emotions towards Betty. It made him feel good, boosted his pride and ego, and tide with the fact he trusted her, he liked Betty. So if Marcela would have been the same way at the start, don't you think Armando would have felt the same? Therefore he wouldn't had cheated on Marcela?

Again, that sounds like I'm solely blaming Marcela for the dissolvement of their relationship but I'm not.

Armando is part/responsible for Marcela's possessiveness in their relationship and there's no excuse for it.

What is cheating and why do people cheat?

Cheating can range from emotional intimacy with another person that isn't your partner to physical. The physical can range from simple hand holding to full blown intercourse.

(source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-people-in-relationships-cheat/#:~:text=The%20participants%20admitted%20to%20cheating,desire%2C%20and%20situation%20or%20circumstance.)

In the article linked as a source it mentions that most partners cheat due to a lack of validation, love, or due to neglect in their relationship. What does this tell us?

While cheating is not a valid response to whatever is a lack in a relationship, there's always a valid reason the person feels the way they do. Let me say that again. Cheating is not valid, but the emotions of the person who is cheating, are. Cheating is not valid, but emotions are. What does this mean? (Unless we're talking about a narcissistic abuser. In that case, no. They are not valid) This is overall just a an idea of why cheating occurs in otherwise "healthy" relationships.

If you feel like your relationship lacks validation, love, neglectful, abusive, or there's no spark or desire: LEAVE or go to couple's therapy and work on it with your partner(EXCEPT FOR THE ABUSIVE ONE. LEAVE! LEAVE! LEAVE! LEAVE! There is help for you.).

Emotions are valid, actions are not. A person's feelings are valid but that does not excuse nor justify cheating.

While Armando's cheating was a huge reason why they had fights and arguments, there had to be a reason why he cheated in the first place and while his emotions were valid, his actions were not.

His cheating could have very well begun at the start of the relationship feeling as if he had no real control over his life because of his parents persistent push for him to be with Marcela, which means it had nothing to with Marcela, everything to do with his parents, and ultimately this caused Marcela to be so possessive. Or it could have simply been Marcela who was like that from the start because she too had to deal with the ever guilting of Margarita's "this is what your parents always wanted, for you two to be together and unite the families." In all honesty the real villain of this show is Margarita.

Yes, their relationship was a paradox of sorts. If they broke up, Armando would lose the presidency, the company would dissolve, his parents would hate him, and he'd be a failure. Marcela wouldn't have really lost anything except Armando.

We can go with the 'could have' and 'should have' or 'what if's', but at the end of the day all we've got is what is actually canon in the show and not just speculation.

A few weeks ago I saw this video on my IG feed of FG talking about the ending of YSBLF. He said he didn't give them their happily ever after, since Armando was Betty's executioner(verdugo).

If the writer himself is saying that Armando wasn't all that amazing, I suppose that means he wasn't.

Yes, Armando went through a redemption arc but even then, Armando wasn't the best person. He was simply a better version of himself. He learned to be honest, to view people as his equals, women as humans and not properties, and to be selfless and caring, that's a huge difference from the Armando from the beginning but Armando was still neurotic. He was still a control freak, and was prone to his anger outburst.

However, this is realistic! Armando didn't change to be the perfect man that was deserving of Betty. He came to be real. He had his traumas and he was healing from them. The love of Betty didn't fix him, contrary, when she stopped showing a pure love towards him, osea, removed her love from him, Armando had no other choice but to LEARN to love properly. In order to do that, he needed to revaluate himself, his goals, his life, and what had pushed him to such a low point in his life and the ironic thing is that Armando's low point wasn't him drunk and suicidal at the bar that night. Armando's low point was the moment he agreed to manipulate Betty in order to retain her devotion and the company.

The downfall of Armando began the moment the novela started. It was a slow trickling drip from the throne he believed he deserved for simply existing and just as that, so was Marcela's.

Unlike with Betty, who was basically seduced to be bad, Armando and Marcela's downfall began from the very beginning.

So many people dismiss the abysmal abuse that was plain in the novela when it's the women acting out this way but are quick to crucify any male who acts the same way.

Now, I'm not saying Armando was only a victim of circumstance because that's not true. If I believed anyone was a victim to circumstance I'd say it was Marcela or Betty.

Why?

Because Armando, with chest puffed in pride, cleared headed, and sober CHOSE to manipulate these women. That's the abhorrent part of his character. That above all he always wanted to save his own skin and while his feelings were complex as to why, at the very end of it, he didn't want to deal with the repercussions.

While Armando wanted to be good, to prove he could be good, to himself, Marcela, and his parents, there lacked a true conviction in him. He felt like he needed to be good in order to have his parents love and approval and one of those things was that he also marry Marcela but he didn't feel inspired to be good.

There's a difference between knowing what's good, wanting to do good, and feeling inspired to be good. See, with inspiration comes motivation and with motivation comes action.

Writing complex characters means that good motives are acted out wrong. It means that bad motives are disguised as good acts. Not fully good, not entirely evil.

When you get to know your characters the rest of the story comes to you naturally and by that I mean that the actions they take, the words they speak, how they are, kind of rolls out of you naturally. You need to know your characters before you sit down to write your story.

Armando's actions are horrible. He was abusive but he was also a victim and I know someone is probably wondering "well why aren't you talking about the way he was towards Betty when she found the letter?" and that's simple.

Armando perfectly mirrored Marcela and Betty perfectly mirrored Armando.

I mentioned this in the Marcela Valencia post but I'll try and talk a bit more about it here.

Armando's constant abuse and violation of Betty is an exact mirroring of Marcela, however, he still chose to act this way knowing that instead of drawing Betty closer to him, that he'd push her further away and while in moments of lucidness Armando attempted to resolve the issues he had with Betty in a calm manner, she wasn't on the same page.

Armando chased Betty all over the place, threw jealousy fits, and forced himself onto her. Marcela did the exact same to him.

However, here's the tricky part of it.

Betty.

Betty was the perfect mirror of Armando. She lied to him, manipulated him, and "cheated" on him. The same way he was towards Marcela.

Obviously this is a simplified version of it but it's the same thing at the end of the day.

Had Betty never acted this way, would Armando have treated her the way he had?

To a lesser degree, I do think so.

I think he would have manipulated her and that he would have thrown some jealousy fit here and there.

See the thing is that if Betty had never given him a taste of his own medicine Armando would have never changed. No matter how much he wanted to or how badly he was in love with Betty.

Armando, to his core, was a coward. That's what he was in the story. Due to this he resorted to manipulation and cheating.

While some of his actions were due to some sort of trauma or the fear of rejection, and came from a place of hurt and self-preservation, Armando still acted wrong.

At least at the end Armando took accountability for his actions and somewhat changed his ways. Was he deserving of getting the girl? Not entirely but was Betty deserving of getting Armando? Not entirely and see that's the problem with writing romance.

Often times the most important bit of the story is cut out because "people don't want to see the reconciliation, they just want to hear about it. "

From what I know, Betty never took accountability for the way she treated Armando after she found the letter and this I will later discuss whenever I get around to watching YSBLF and write a post about the episode but in simpler words: Betty chose to exact revenge on Armando and yes, her emotions were so valid! but her actions were not!

Betty treated Armando the exact same way Armando treated Marcela.

Lastly, I've said Armando is a complex character from the start and while that may be true, this complexity does not excuse his horrible behavior because complexities never do.

Well, I hope y'all enjoy this long over due post, and I apologize for the long hiatus on the YSBLF breakdown posts.

Also, again, sorry if there's any grammar mistakes, I'm working on it! Lol.

'Til next time :)

[casfa88]

Armando did want a good secretary not just a pretty girl

I know that Armando is a mujeriego at the beginning of the novela but I always found it interesting that he did always want a good secretary. Although it seemed that everyone thought he wanted a pretty girl he could look at he did mention the qualities he was looking for. When Gutierrez presents him with Patricia he gets upset and mentions that he did not ask for a model. That he wanted someone who at least speaks two languages and understands/manages systems, that he didn't ask him for someone pretty. He asked him for someone efficient!

I really like this little snippet. Armando loves EcoModa - he wants to succeed in his presidency and he knows he needs a secretary with a good head on her shoulders. Now I am not saying that if a beautiful girl that did have all those qualities applied to the position he would ask her to be hired but he definitely did not want a pretty faced bimbo as some seem to think he would!

[youwontlikethisblog]

Marcela Valencia Part A

In this post I will be discussing Marcela and her toxic/abusive traits. There will be a mention of Armando but since this isn't the post regarding his abusive tendencies and toxic behavior in that relationship I won't really be focusing on him. I am not brushing off his behavior or painting him to be the victim. For the sake of this post I want you to keep that in mind because I won't be focusing on him, rather Marcela.

From the start of the series Marcela is an antagonist, full stop. I'm not referring to the romantic element of the story we are given but just in general.

An antagonist is usually the character used to press all the right buttons on the protagonist for the sake of pushing them. In a way they are the worst traits of the protagonist at all times, however they're not all that terrible so they aren't the story's true villain. Short words: They are the opposer or rival of the story.

She antagonizes Armando a lot, but at what point does just pushing buttons turn into abuse?

Abuse:

treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.

"riders who abuse their horses should be prosecuted"

We are told Marcela Valencia is in love with Armando the entire time. Her actions are justified by the ideology that women who behave this way are just passionate and deeply in love so they defend their territory and lash out because they don't want to lose the man they love and above all, wounds caused by love are justified.

Except we are shown something differently.

Marcela judges people by their looks, she is snotty, spoiled, emotionally immature/stunt, and as many say a misogynist. She looks at every woman as a competition and solely blames women for the actions that man were involved in as well(for example when Aura Maria had a relationship with Mario while he was in a relationship with Patty. She was constantly throwing remarks at Aura Maria after that. Now, I personally believe that Aura Maria is just at fault as Mario. She learned that he was in a relationship with Patty and didn't end it, instead for the sake of her ego continued to sleep with him to get back at Patty. She did have fault for that but Mario did too for taking advantage of his power in the company and being a whore.). Marcela never holds men accountable for what they do. Men have desires, men blah blah blah.

When Armando cheats on her, she does throw a fit and gets angry at him but usually her anger is imploded on the poor stupid woman who slept with Armando.

This we are shown at the start of the Novela, literally in the first couple of episodes we are told and shown this. So it isn't uncommon when we see her behave this way.

However later on we are given scenes where the disagreement that Armando and her are having aren't related to infidelity. They relate to Patricia, Betty, business deals, and so on.

It's understandable that Marcela wants to be the priority in Armando's life; the issue here is that Marcela does nothing to gain that. She demands it automatically. She demands to be his priority in everything. From the start she begins to spy on Armando, constantly wanting to know his whereabouts. She calls him every time they aren't in the same building. She expects him to answer her calls, tell her what he's doing and who with. She feels like Armando is supposed to do this because she owns him.

Take into account that at the beginning of the series Marcela is stomach-able in the romantic element. Later her lust turns into possessiveness.

Where she no longer looks at Armando as her boyfriend but an object for her to have. She sees him as a trophy that makes her look good. Marcela Valencia, the woman who manages to get Armando Mendoza, a man desired by every woman who is a womanizer, to settle down to one woman? and that woman be her, Marcela Valencia.

The problem is that we're told she is the one that is in love in the relationship however she constantly dismisses Armando's feelings, finds every excuse to be a helicopter and overbearing in his life when she can clearly tell he doesn't want that.

Their relationship is toxic and dysfunctional. They are both at fault but in this post I really want to focus on Marcela's side and her role in it.

I've been thinking a lot about Marcela and how it must be to be in a relationship like hers. Now not to get too personal on her but I have been in toxic friendships. I know what it's like to have someone gaslight you, use silent treatments as a form of punishment to make you feel guilty for calling them out, and breaking down your self-esteem. You really believe that no one will ever care for you like they do and you become depended on them and their validation.

However I don't identify myself with Marcela at all. She doesn't have low self-esteem, which cancels out that Armando's cheating deeply affects her. Marcela knows she's beautiful and desired by other men(I could be mistaking YSBLF with LFMB in this specific regard but I recall an early episode where Patty and Marce are talking about guys and Patty tells her she's desired by other men) . She thinks she's better than Betty and all the other woman that Armando has slept with and blames those woman9Not that they're so hot that he succumbed to their beauty but that they're classless women who go after men that are in relationships and that because he's a man and a woman wants to do the sinful dance with for Armando's infidelity and Armando never tells her that she's ugly, undesirable, that no one else will love her etc etc. So why does she stay with him? Is it love?

Love isn't possessive, jealous, angry, hurtful, boastful, arrogant, or selfish.

She doesn't love him.

So why does she stay with him?

I already mentioned it. She views Armando as an object. A trophy of sorts that is good for her self-esteem and her image. So she takes his infidelities as just stupid flings but Armando wants to marry her so she's better than they are. Those women are just for a day or two but she's forever and that makes her a champion.

She is so stubborn that she won't let him leave. Armando essentially becomes a bird with its wings clipped and trapped in a cage for her own amusement.

Many people don't see that because to everyone else Marcela is the poor victim of Armando and his infidelities.

The episode I'm on right now shows us this dynamic. Marcela is upset and angry at Armando for his fling with Claudia(she knows it happened even though he denies it.) and they're arguing over it. They're walking in the hotel as Armando asks her if she wants them to be the main show of the event or for them to kill each other, if that's what she wants than perfect he'll oblige.

She then tells him that she asked for one head and he hasn't delivered it, that he had his fling in her company to which Armando replies "It's mine too."

"Yes it's yours too but I asked you for one head! and you haven't given it to me! You aren't going to be laughing at me! I won't allow it!" she waves her finger in his face.

"I'm not laughing at you" Armando's tone is defensive and in the background we see Cata and a guest nearing them and here's the thing that demonstrates why Marcela is the perfect example of an abuser behind closed doors.

Everyone expects and sees Armando yelling at her and telling her things but often it happens after Marcela has pushed his buttons(not saying that she didn't have a reason to be angry at him, she did) often times we see the switch between being the abuser to being the abused. While one is being abusive the other is being an reactionary abuser.

What is the difference between someone who is abusive and an reactionary abuser?

The abuser often times is the one with the upper hand and the one causing or inflicting pain on purpose while the reactionary is reacting to the abuse in an a way that is abusive.

For example here Marcela is demanding for him to do what she told him to do and that she won't permite for him to laugh at her. The day has been a bad one for Armando so he is tense and already in a bad mood as he talks to Marcela.

However Marcela wants things done her way, despite knowing that Armando's hands are tied with Claudia the model he had a fling with, and that Armando doesn't want to fire his assistant. She expects and demands for him to do what she told him to do and she won't let him get away with not doing it.

What does this mean? Enter the space of reading between the lines. Hearing a phrase like that and understanding the context is a very vital and important bit. Let's reverse the gender roles here for a bit. If a man told a woman "You aren't going to be laughing at me! I won't allow it!" while waving their finger in their face what would we think of that situation? We'd think they guy is being borderline abusive, wouldn't we? While yes Marcela has every right to be justified in her anger, the problem lies with how she behaves or reacts due to her anger. Feelings are always valid, actions not so much. Actions can be explained but not always justified and this is where Marcela's behavior is wrong. Here she shows that she has the upper hand and control over Armando's fate in totality.

In this moment as Armando now starts yelling at her as Cata and the guest near them, Armando is the abuser and Marcela is the abused as she stands there taking his yelling they then get interrupted by Cata and the guest and great each other. Marcela then throws a jab at him to poke him, he turns to look at her and shakes his head and tells her that wasn't funny.

Marcela turns to look at him and says "No? You don't think that it was funny that you were locked in your office with a model and had your assistant sneak her out?"

This now becomes a public humiliation of Armando as his intimacy is thrown out there for the public to consume and Marcela is the poor victim of Armando and his infidelity.

[EDIT: I find this scene interesting because you'd assume Marcela wouldn't want to make it public that Armando cheats on her. She cares about public perception. However she throws this out to both Cata and unknown guest. A person who often suffers at the hand's of their partner due to infidelity carries a shame and an embarrassment due to it, so why does Marcela make it public? She does it to make Armando uncomfortable, to show that she has power in the relationship. Also because this is a a tactic many abusers use, which is victimize themselves to the public in order to gain sympathy votes and whenever the person who is the true victim of the situation acts out in defiance, anger, or even abusive/toxic ways, they can say "see I told you! They're the bad one, I'm just a victim!" this allows the abuser to continue having the upper hand in the relationship and further isolating their victim.

Which is something that Armando is dealing with. In another post I talked about how Armando never seemed to make many friends aside from Mario but it just hit me that often times Armando has said that he can't go somewhere or hang out with certain people because Marcela hates them and will not let him go out or use them as an excuse to go on his dates with Betty because Marcela would want to go to keep an eye on him. Often times Marcela is the one that is seen to be the one to have more friends than Armando.]

This isn't the first time that an incident like this happens.

Later on when Armando begins his romance with Betty in the early stages of it they get into a huge fight in his office due to a poem Betty left on his desk signed by Delmira Agostini(Post Hmm, Yeah, Who Knows Where He Spent The Night) and later on that night Hugo goes into his office and tells him about it.

Armando scoffed and said something along the lines of "Marcela went to you with the new piece of gossip, of course she would.". It wasn't until I heard him say that that it all made sense to me.

Armando doesn't just neglect to invite Marcela into his personal intimate life(his thoughts etc.) because he's a cheating whore but because he doesn't trust her.

We're never shown Marcela to be worthy of his trust(just because you're in a relationship with someone doesn't automatically mean you get ownership of their intimacy or that you deserve it for simply being a participating individual of said relationship) . Behind closed doors when he's not around she tells his business to Patricia, Hugo, or Margarita and from there on mouths run. She does it with every affair Armando has and I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to be upset, she does but the way she behaves and reacts to it is the problem.

She demands for Armando to respect her, prioritize her, do everything she wants and without doing anything to be worthy of it. Her possessiveness isn't only related to Armando, she's also possessive regarding her role in Eco Moda, which is a reason why she goes after Betty so much, even before she starts to cover for Armando's infidelities.

Marcela's abuse is by extorting Armando both emotionally and sexually. The man lives only to avoid fights in the relationship and uses affairs as a from of escapism from said relationship, is it justified? No.

This behavior of him feeds the cycle, however we understand that Armando's actions are wrong and not excusable, explainable? Yes but not excused. In the same vain, so are Marcela's actions.

In order for a relationship to be toxic, both people have to be abusive towards each other, if not than it would just be an abusive relationship but because both Marcela and Armando have these abusive tendencies and traits, they both lash out, they both inflict pain on each other and they both hate each others guts.

Due to Armando's gaslighting Marcela reacts fueled with anger to prove that she's right.

[EDIT: This other half(starting from this point on) of the post is written months after I first wrote the first half so there might be a bit of change in tonality when I talk about Marcela, however the point still stands which is why I didn't just write a whole new post in regards to this.]

I've just never understood why she wants to prove she's right and the only thing that comes to mind is ego.

Marce has proven that Armando has been unfaithful. She often says that if she ever caught Armando in the act of infidelity that she'd end him however we have been told countless times of the women Marcela has kicked out of Eco Moda and career's of whom she's ruined because she had enough evidence, just not of Armando with his pants down. This evidence has been enough for Marce to act this way...so wouldn't that be enough to prove that Armando is unfaithful? Enough evidence to end him and their relationship? Each time he denies this, each time he ends the argument with "fine I'll leave then." and she tells him not to.

Why does she stay?

I think Marcela's possessiveness comes from losing her parents and not being able to move through that pain. Losing a loved one is not easy and she lost both her parents and was told that to honor her parents she should marry Armando, that it's what her parents wanted most in the world, for both families to be united and to work for the company.

I do think for that reason Marcela also stayed in the relationship with Armando. She felt that she was honoring her parents final wishes, however, she truly thought or believed she loved Armando and was in love with him.

She didn't understand that what she felt for him wasn't real and genuine feelings.

After taking a break from YSBLF for a couple of weeks I've had to really reflect on my personal opinions of the characters, especially Marcela.

I don't think it's surprising for me to say that I'm not a big fan of hers, even when she's nice. I understand that Armando's actions are a reason as to why she acts the way she does, however while writing for Armando's Deep Dive Character post I came to realize something that made me look at Marcela in a whole new light.

I condemn Marcela so much, without an ounce of redemption, when she's just like Armando.

Pah pah pah

Hear me out.

Not in all aspects, but in some, they are.

This is highlighted a lot when Armando becomes toxic in his relationship with Betty, after she finds the letter.

As I was writing down that part of his post I realized that Armando was acting just like Marcela was when she'd accuse him of cheating and it wasn't until I did that that I decided to take some time and reflect on Marcela and wanting to give her a fair chance instead of making a post only condemning her with only a few nice things to say about her.

Again, emotions, feelings, they are valid but actions aren't always justified, only explained.

In the art of being objective, I must also be objective with Betty and as much as I hate to do this I must run her through the mud for just this once.

Marcela isn't insecure, I think we've established that already. The reason why she stayed with Armando was more in the act of egotism and wanting to be the 'champion', above all women she'd be the one the tame the slut(I use this term without gender in mind). She stays in the relationship because of her possessiveness, like a dog who has marked her territory already, and in a sense to honor her parents, in this order, from priority to lesser.

However there's more to her behavior.

Marcela has been gaslit by Armando for a couple of months, I won't say years because at the start of the Novela it was insinuated that though they were in a relationship for two years that it was understood it was pretty casual from Armando's side since he did make a promise to stop being such a sexual-*ahmm* social butterfly outside of their relationship and to settle down and become more mature. So again I won't say years for the exact reason as even Marcela knew that Armando had his other girlfriends, even if he denied it, like everyone knew.

Obviously this would cause her to act out this way, however very immature on her part. Since with her we don't really get an upbringing, even a small hint like we did with Armando it is really hard to pin point if she was always like this or if it was solely based on Armando's cheating that made her be that way.

However, again, since she was this way from the get go, one can assume she has always been like this.

She's classist, entitled, snobby, elitist, sexist, and so much more from the start.

Due to that we will asume that this is probably due to feeling like she needs to be in a constant competition with women, for Armando. However this in itself present itself as a double edge sword of sorts, for one it causes her to have a big idea of herself. She views herself as better than most women if not all, physically that is. This grandiosity she has of herself is really the factor that causes such a strain in their relationship because let's say that Marcela wasn't so possessive, sexually and emotionally manipulative, and selfish in her relationship, do you think Armando would cheat on her?

And the argument of "why is it only the woman's fault that their partner cheats on them?" its not important rn, this question isn't implying that.

There's a possibility he would, lets be honest, he wasn't in love with Marcela.

But at least he'd love her as a friend, no?

Enough to not want to hurt her.

While yes Armando was marrying her for three reasons, one of them being his ego inflation once he won the presidency of Eco Moda instead of Daniel(though this wasn't the only reason he wanted the gig) the other his parents and lastly the fact he wanted to prove to Marcela, his parents, and himself that he was capable of being mature and settling down with one woman and he chose Marcela to be that woman.

He did want to stay faithful to her and he did want to get serious.

However, this is where the but gets here and Marcela's fanbase will get upset but too bad too sad, this is an objective analysis.

Marcela became so much more possessive of Armando after their engagement. She became very entitled of him and wanted to know where he was, with who, what(who) he was doing, and with whom. His agenda and her fight to have it, against Armando's wishes, was a perfect example of that but also went to symbolize to want lengths Marcela would go to get what she wants, without someone's consent.

With her ever growing entitlement of Armando the more desperate that man became to flee from Marcela to the point that it no longer was about proving to himself and others that he was mature and settling down with Marcela but out of duty, responsibility, and fear that he stayed in the relationship.

We can agree that Armando is just as much to blame for the dissolvement of that relationship as Marcela.

I do think that growing up in an environment where Beauty is the status quo and "perfection" isn't only expected but required has caused her to be very vain and superficial, just like with Armando. She was a daddy's girl and it was implied by Roberto that Marcela was probably her father's favorite.

I already did a post where I talked in granted detail about a father's role in their daughter's development and life[Don Hermes: A Deep Dive] and I suggest you go read it if you haven't in order to continue this next theme.

It's always healthy to grow up with both parents, especially a father figure. It helps a girl out a lot in her life. The problem begins when the father figure isn't a good parental role.

For example: A father who always succumbs to all the tantrums and wishes their daughter has will teach them that they should always get what they want without much effort, that things should be handed to them. It teaches girls that certain things are possessions, even humans, that they deserve things if they so as much just want it. It makes them grow up with a huge ego and belief that they deserve things for simply existing and breathing, even if their behavior isn't in par with it.

Allowing your child to avoid the natural consequences of their actions teaches them that they can do what ever they want.

If Marcela was a huge daddy's girl, but grew up with a father who did absolutely anything she wanted and desired for simply saying it she won't have a balanced way of thinking when it comes to her partner. She would expect him to give her everything she wants and desires for simply being in the relationship and when not met her way she'd throw a tantrum in order to still get it.

What evidence is there in show of this?

One of the very first episodes there's a scene where she's with Margarita, talking about the agenda, I believe, and Margi tells her she's not acting like a mature woman but the same spoiled immature woman as always. Marcela gets offended and angry at this but the scene changes.

The tiny glimpses we get from Marcela aren't positive ones. They indicate someone who always has been this way.

Even though I haven't really sat down to watch the later half of the novela, only the last three episodes, Marcela still carried and acted as herself. Not once did she change, especially those crucial episodes in which she breaks up with Armando.

When she has moments of lucidness, of realizing what that relationship is, Margi and Patsy Pats are always there to pull her away from that lucidness and convince her to stay in the relationship, especially Margi as she constantly manipulates Marcela's emotions to continue the relationship. HOWEVER, even when it comes to that lucidness, Marcela only wants to break up with Armando for the simple reason that it grosses her out that Armando slept with Betty. That's it. It only hurts her that she's suffered and she doesn't want to continue suffering.

Yes this is a valid reason, one should end a relationship if they are unhappy in said relationship. So what is the problem?

Selfishness, even in the breakup, Marcela shows to be selfish. She uses this infidelity that Armando had with a woman, an "ugly" one, and that is the most despicable thing to her, not that he had an affair with a woman, but an ugly one. That is the affair that shatters her self-esteem because she herself realized that it wasn't only physical but emotional. He didn't just have a sexual affair but he literally replaced her in all aspects of their life and treated her better than he treated her, the ugly woman.

That alone is hurtful. We can sympathize with her for it.

Obviously she'd want to break up with him.

However, again, the hurt she feels is a hurt of "What he has done to me" not rather a hurt of "What this relationship has done to the both of us". Time and time again Marcela fails to realize or accept that she too is to blame for their failing of that relationship.

She is a victim to Armando's gaslighting. She is a victim to the cheating.

However as explained in this post we can conclude why Marcela stays in the relationship. She doesn't stay for love, out of fear, out of the fear that no one will love her or want her. She stays out of possessiveness and egotism. She stays to have someone to control. Someone to abuse.

You cannot say Armando did not suffer abuse from Marcela.

She sexually exploited him by not respecting his no's when he'd say he didn't want to or wasn't in the mood. The man would just lay there. Even when it was over, the final times, when did get short scenes of them afterwards, while Marcela was happy, Armando looked somewhere else.

She guilt him to stay in the relationship, she'd talk badly about him to others. She had an absolute control over his social life. Her constant threats of destroying his life if they broke up if she ever physically caught him in the act of cheating weren't empty as she did just that when she had a whiff of cheating on his part.

Yes her feelings are valid, her actions? No.

Even then this woman was severely hurt, either if she herself inflicted these wounds or others did, she did deserve to get well for her sake and not for somebody else. However the huge differences between Marcela and Armando are big. They aren't tiny ones and due to this it could sound like I'm justifying or excusing one's actions while condemning another's actions; which is not the case at all.

And since I already said this post isn't focused on Armando; I won't really explain or try to breakdown his side and I'm merely using these two examples as a means to compare and see how vile Marcela's actions truly were.

The huge differences are that Armando wanted to end the relationship, not for his sake alone, but for Marcela's as well. He didn't want to cause her more harm and knew that by staying with her, even as guilty as he felt hurting her, that he was miserable and would only cause her harm due to it. He knew how his actions would harm her and in order to not harm her anymore he decided that it was best if they broke up. While Marcela only wanted to end the relationship because her ego had crumbled but even then she still didn't want to lose her hold on Armando as an object.

Armando came to not only know why his actions were bad, but understand why and how bad they were as he paid the consequences to it. He lost absolutely everything but in that he also learned what true love is and what self-love/respect means as well. Sadly Marcela never had that. She never really changed her way of thinking, even after Armando expressed to her how he felt in their relationship when they broke up for the final time, Marcela at the end of the novela said she loved Armando and due to that she was telling Betty the whole truth; however the real objective was that Eco Moda wouldn't be abandoned for the banks to shred to pieces, so it wasn't out of love or self-sacrifice for Armando's happiness. She only did it for Eco Moda, in reality she did it for her parents which shows that she can in fact love correctly when it's convenient to her. By that point she knew Armando would never get back with her, no matter how much she wanted it so she did what she had to for Eco Moda and her parents legacy.

The episodes after Betty finds the letter are so emotionally heavy for me that I cannot sit down and watch them just because it stresses me out so much for a lot of reasons, which is why I've taken a break from it.

For one: Marcela entitlement and egotism is so huge and highlighted in these episodes that I get head aches from rolling my eyes.

Two: Armando's behavior pisses me off so much.

and lastly three: Betty. Oh if I were her friend and knew what was going on I'd slap her 'til she orbited Jupiter thrice

Now that those disclaimers are out of the way let's continue analyzing the final stages of Marcela's abusive behavior.

In this love, or relationship triangle Armando is always in the middle of it. He is always split between Marce and Betty. However, what truly highlights his abusive and terrible toxic traits are very much a mirror and identical to those of Marcela.

For example, as mentioned above, when he grabs Betty by the force to kiss her in the office; Marcela constantly going down on him when he tells her he isn't in the mood. When he follows Betty around; Marcela spying on him. When he accuses Betty of cheating; Marcela's constant accusations. When he beat up Nicolas; Marcela destroying the career's of the women he had affairs with and banning them from ever working for Eco Moda.

What's different here?

Well Marcela only ever seemed to let go of an argument when Armando would conclude his gaslighting for the night by threatening to leave the apartment but she never really let go of it. She'd always save it for later; to prove he wasn't trust worthy. Often times when a person says they'll drop it or forgive the person or forget about it and they save it for later this is done in a way to guilt the person, to shame them, and humiliate them and make them feel, even if they've changed, that they will never atone for their past mistakes, that they are in debt to the person and therefore continue to do as they say or stay.

When Betty and Armando would argue or discuss something they'd often do it with the goal of resolving whatever issue it was they were having, which is something that is done in healthy relationships.

When Marcela and Armando are arguing there is constant yelling, no attempt to actually resolve the issue just end the argument because often Marcela wants to be right. She wants to be the one that is to speak and be heard and most importantly be right. This builds an atmosphere of fear, of distrust, and of guilt. Even if Armando did want to confess to her that he had cheated with so and so; it wasn't that Marcela would leave him; it's what she would do in retribution that kept him with his lips sealed.

Armando was terrified of Marcela and what she would do to him, not only in a romantic and personal way but to his entire life.

I'm not saying Marcela didn't have a right to be angry; except again, all of this time we're being told that Marcela loves Armando and her actions always come from a place of love. Does this sound like someone who loves their partner?

Since we've established the reason she stays isn't for love towards Armando we can conclude she stays for the love she feels for herself.

However this parallels to Betty as well.

When Betty comes to find the letter with every right she feels angry, hurt, violated, and hateful. However even then, as valid as her feelings are, her actions are not.

It wasn't until I read @el-moscorrofio-y-el-mercachifle post talking about Armando also being a victim that it finally clicked. For a while I felt like I couldn't really put my finger on it, like I couldn't understand why I disliked Betty so much at this point of the novela until THEN.

Betty takes on the role of Armando in her relationship with Armando, while Armando takes on the role of Marcela.

The papers are reversed. I'll talk more about this in the Armando post but just wanted to sort of bring it on here too because it displays Marcela's abusive behavior so well.

The thing is that Marcela's actions are often celebrated because she's a vengeful woman who was done wrong by the man she loves but we can conclude that Marcela doesn't love Armando, she isn't even in love with him or the idea of him. She's in love with the idea of herself being in love with him. She's in lust with him and she feels like he belongs to her for simply "winning against all the other women."

She uses a lot of tactics that Narcissistic abuser use. I'm not saying she displays symptoms of NPD. However she is very close to it.

Marcela Valencia has good qualities to her; for example deep down she's a romantic who when seeing Freddy and Aura Maria back together she softens and talked to Aura about being serious and not hurting Freddy. Seeing the way Freddy loves Aura Maria is what truly melts her ice heart and she ends up not firing them.

She helps out Patsy Pats even though she knows that she'll mostly likely never pay her back and that Patsy just manipulates her into giving her money and to leach her.

She wants to be loved. She's responsible, hard working, and truly cares about her role in Eco Moda.

These are good qualities of hers.

However they become overshadowed and covered up by all her other terrible qualities so it's really hard to find them and that's the whole point. While Betty is supposed to be "ugly" on the outside she's supposed to be quite beautiful and astonishing on the inside and contrary Marcela is supposed to be extremely attractive on the outside while ugly on the inside.

Yes, cheating is not something anyone deserves and it's not justified. If you're unhappy in a relationship be honest and leave it before you cheat. However both Armando and Marcela had so many responsibilities with other people for the relationship to continue and knowing how they both are they both stayed for those reasons but priorities are the main reason they stayed.

Armando was terrified of ending the relationship for the consequences and retaliation of Marcela. Marcela didn't want to end the relationship because she felt like she'd lose her favorite toy and she wouldn't feel like a champion anymore. Armando cheated to escape the relationship while this just ended up making Marcela even more unbearable. Had Armando never cheated on her after he proposed to her, do you think they would have ended?

Yeah.

Armando was miserable even at the start of that relationship and due to it he didn't trust nor share anything with her and that drove Marcela nuts and would continue to do so.

Healthy relationships, above all have mutual respect for one another and that moves their love to be selfless, their desires to work in harmony, and for issues to be resolved not because of egos but in order to restore the harmony of their relationship.

If we as a fandom condemn Armando for what he did to Betty and Marcela we should also condemn Marcela and Betty for what they did to Armando.

In this love triangle of sorts they were all victims of their borderline abusive and full on abusive traits. Also they're all victims of Margarita, in all honesty she should be the one that should be blamed, along with Roberto. They both sucked as(Step) parents, role models, and advisories.

Anyway hope y'all like this post. I know it's a little all over the place but I've been writing it for months and finally decided to post the first part.

[youwontlikethisblog]

Don Hermes: A Deep Dive

Hello, back from the grave(briefly)

I know I said I would be taking a break from posting analysis of the episodes and scenes but I've been thinking about this for weeks and I can't get it out of my head so might as well write a post dedicated to Don Hermes.

In order to really understand this character, once more, we have to look at the dynamics, culture, era, and context of cause and effect of this character, his motives, reasons, and effects not only that affect him but effect Betty.

In this post I will be discussing the following:

Actions don't tend to only affect those who cause and those who are direct receivers of said actions; contrary they are a domino effect.

We have to look at the consequences of daughters who grow up with and without a father.

As I've mentioned before in order to write good characters you have to understand your characters. It's not a maybe, a possibility, or a perhaps in the choices your characters make, it is a 100% understanding of the choices your characters make.

Domino Effect:

Feelings and emotions are something that contribute a lot in the way we behave, react, and deal with things, if we didn't have emotions than it would be a warning to seek professional help.

What does this have to do with a fictional character?

The lure of watching TV is that it's meant to be mindless, numbly, and just something to fry your brain so you can escape reality. Unless you set out to watch a real life event made to movie based on facts or a documentary you expect that everything you watch is meant to not make you think. It's the appealing factor of watching TV instead of reading. With reading you're more aware of the dilemas, action, cause and effect, as well as see the world through the main character's eyes.

It's sort of a manual that guides you right through this story you've jumped in to see. You become the main character and see the world just as they see it. However with TV, that's not something you truthfully get[to experience] and the reason being is that even when there is a main character being the voice of guidance like in books, you really get to see the main character for what they are. You aren't vividly in the main character's train of thought like in reading, you're only watching it, not living it, so small details in movies and tv shows can be greatly missed, unless if you're like me, who obsesses over small tiny details, than you aren't going to pick up on it right away, or maybe never.

We know one film snobs who think certain movies are the epidemy of art and commentary of society norms and that mundane movies and tv shows based on clichés are boring and braindead excuses that only people who can't think watch, yuck.

Suspenseful, detective, crime, and thriller movies have an advantage, you as the viewer, know that something is up and that the character's can't be trusted, even the main character, so you as the viewer, make the extra effort to pay attention to small details. It becomes a conscious effort, just like reading.

When you're reading you make the conscious effort to pay attention to detail because you know that in order to really enjoy the book you must immerse yourself into that world. I've seen memes where people say: When you're reading and you're the director, the producer, wardrobe/set designer, and main actor on set so you have to cut the scene, go back and re-read a sentence until you imagine it just right.

When you're watching TV all of that is done for you. It's why many times when novels, trilogies, or books are turned into movies we're left disappointed because it's not what we imagined.

What does all of this have to do with domino effect and Don Hermes you ask?

Well simply put: he's a character that is just as wonderfully written as the rest that people just lump with a bad father and I am here to clear his name.

To watch Yo Soy Betty, La Fea and really understand the moral of the story you have to pay attention to detail because it gives a broader understanding of the characters, moral, and overall the point of the story we're being told.

These details if ignored, distort the story we are hearing. It gives it a false narrative and takes away the reality that Fernando Gaitan was writing and that's another thing; YSBLF is based on the logic of that world and it closely if not, is a mirroring or resemblance to our real world and the commentary of FG on it.

In Latine America men are raised to be mentally, emotionally, and physically strong and that they are stronger in all those aspects to that of women. The consequence of this is that it builds a culture of machismo where the translation that men and women are different means that women are lesser than men, in that culture and that women need men to live and cater to men.

ma·chis·mo/mäˈCHēzmō/

noun strong or aggressive masculine pride. "the exaggerated machismo displayed in the tango"

Machismo is deeply imbedded in Latine American culture and taught to boys as they grow up. Nowadays that's changing and the idea of men being machistas and that being acceptable is being challenged but we're not talking about nowadays, we're talking about the past.

YSBLF came out in 1999, Betty is roughly around 23-25 when the novela starts, her father and mother are much older than her(DUH)and very old school however a bit open minded in some things. In Betty's birthday episode the way Don Hermes was dressed and the music he selected gives an understanding that he most likely was born in the late 40's or 50's and that he lived long enough in those decades to see the consequences of war, the importance of being ethical and having a good moral compass, idealizing "Simpler" times and so forth.

He is very old fashioned in the understanding that what makes a well rounded person is the family they have and how much of a reflection it is of their parents that their child is a good person. However, idealistically speaking, he goes against the grain of what a machista is, therefore he isn't a machista.

Now you may ask: "But he constantly yells at Betty and her mom!" and yes, he is a crappy husband, but we're not talking about that, just yet.

Don Hermes pushed his daughter to study, and in a field were women aren't really welcomed, especially in Latin America in the 90's(especially if you're "ugly"), constantly told her she didn't need to depend on anyone, that she didn't need a job, especially work in a place where they humiliated her, because he'd always take care of her, however, he always encouraged her to be hard working and put all her degrees to work.

That goes against the core believe that machistas have.

Now that we know he isn't a machista, let's take a look at another part of his character.

Don Hermes is very old school with the way women compose themselves. He looks down upon Betty's friends because they have "libertinaje" meaning they live a immodest lifestyle. Divorced, single mothers, separated, out without her husband, drunkards', loud, dressed in tight clothing, and "looking fervently" for a man. All things he believes women shouldn't be.

Why is that?

Understanding the domino effect is important here because this is something that Don Hermes has tried to shield Betty from, from a young age.

Wikipedia: Domino effect: A domino effect or chain reaction is the cumulative effect produced when one event sets off a chain of similar events. The term is best known as a mechanical effect and is used as an analogy to a falling row of dominoes

In the late 70's and 80's the world faced the epidemic of AIDS, at that time there wasn't a broad understanding of what AIDS was and how you got it however, it was something, that to this day, is understood to be a desease one gets from unprotected sex , multiple sex partners and a wild social life.

Yeah I know, what does this have to do with anything?

Imagine hearing in the news that globally, a desease that affects both women and men, particularly, from what I've read, AIDS was more prominent in the years of 1993-1997 in Colombia, AIDS was at it's highest rate of infection, in your country, that doesn't have enough research or treatment, is affecting the younger population. Nowadays we understand that men are at a higher risk of AIDS than women. However this type of information wasn't so openly out there in the past.

So in conclusion: There's a sexually transmitted deseas with no cure, no real understanding of how you can get it, and people who have a "Wild and free" life seem to be the most affected: My daughter will not be influenced by people to live a "wild and free" life at the risk of dying.

Yeah Don Hermes was also old school and believed that women who had relations outside of wedlock were not pristine and a bad reflection of moral teaching.

However and I will get to this later on in this post, you have to understand your character's fears and worries.

I'm trying to paint a picture here, of an example that is not at all factual in the show but just to give an understanding of what could have caused this man to be so overly protective of his daughter. If you grew up with old school traditions and teachings, with a daughter that was bullied for simply existing, in a world that didn't accept your child as is, that lives in a country where drug wars, civil wars, and epidemics of deseases with no cure are prevalent, would you not be an over bearing parent?

The domino effect of the world that Don Hermes grew up in and watched his daughter grow up in affected him to be over bearing, over protective, and a strict father.

Lets not forget that to Don Hermes Betty was his most precious possession and that he strongly believed that the best inheritance a father could leave their child was good moral conduct, modest, and ethical example.

He wanted his daughter to stay inside his house, where he could keep an eye on her, because he wanted to keep her safe and protect her from the world. Were his methods not the best? Yeah.

Due to this over protectiveness of his, Betty grew up shield from the real world and naïve to an extent, of the dangers of it and how deprived men can be. This does have a domino effect in Betty's life-when it comes to being social.

Was he at fault for his daughter's low self-esteem and self worth?

No and you can catch these hands if you think otherwise.

Lets now jump into the subject of understanding of:

What are the Consequences of growing up with and without a father for a girl?

When we get flashbacks of Betty's childhood her dad is very present in those flashbacks, overbearingly so. In the first topic we understood why he was overbearing, the reasons why, and what the domino effect of his life experience had on him as a father, however in this section we're still dealing with the domino effect of his parenting methods, but it isn't the main focus.

In the Armando post where I briefly talked about the subject of a parents roles in their child's development I said something along the lines of how children are a reflection of their environment and that parents are a huge part of their child's development.

Betty as well is a reflection of her environment and the role her parents had in her life.

We love Betty, she's sweet, caring, kind, loving, "innocent", always trying to see the good in people, and intelligent.

Father figures are an extremely important role both for their sons and daughters but especially in the role of their daughter's self-esteem.

Self-esteem isn't only based on your looks, it's a broader understanding of you and what you are as a reflection of how you feel about it all, if that makes sense.

Studies show that girls who grow up without a father tend to have more problematic relationships, low self-esteem, low self-worth, battle addiction, depression, suicide, eating disorders, etc.

Though Betty does have low self-esteem and absolutely no self-worth, she doesn't have it as a result of having an absent father and like I said in the Armando post: an absent parent doesn't always mean that the parent isn't physically there. It can mean a parent who isn't there for the emotional and mental growth and development of their child, however obviously some parents aren't there for all three things.

"Fathers provide their daughters with a masculine example. They teach their children about respect and boundaries and help put daughters at ease with other men throughout their lives. [...] So if she didn't grow up with a proper example, she will have less insight and she'll be more likely to go for a man that will replicate the abandonment of her father."

— Caitlin Marvaso, AMFT, a grief counselor and therapist in Oakland, CA

source: https://wehavekids.com/family-relationships/When-Daddy-Dont-Love-Their-Daughters-What-Happens-to-Women-Whose-Fathers-Werent-There-for-Them#:~:text=To%20summarize%2C%20depression%2C%20suicide%2C,effects%20of%20an%20absent%20father.

Has Don Hermes been an emotionally/mentally absent father?

Again the flashbacks we get don't point to that. In fact it's a father who is present, in mostly every flashback, and one who takes the lead of it. Betty often talks about him with endearment and even names him as her most precious possession, which mirrors Don Hermes sentiment towards her. He is her pride.

He constantly is seen being protective of her and while not the most emotional guy, he showers her with positive attention and reaffirming her worth by reminding her that she is well educated, academically educated, has good moral and ethical standing, and should be respected because she is deserving of it, not only because of all the above but because she is his daughter, his pride and joy.

So then, what are the consequences of having a present father, who is both mentally and emotionally present in a girls life?

For one self-esteem and self worth are a lot higher, expectations of men and long lasting relationships with them are healthier, they are not afraid to set boundaries, self-respect, lower chances of risky behavior etc.

Speaking from experience of being a daddy's girl: a father's role is extremely important to building healthy relationships with not only men but people in general(I was gonna make a personal experience joke but it was outta pocket). My father taught me how to read, draw, write, count, and how to cry it out. There wasn't a bad day in school that I didn't go to my dad to cry and vent and he'd always gift me something afterwards be it a fancy eraser or a doll. My father in some ways reminds me of Don Hermes so my opinion could be a bit personal lol.

Authoritative parenting style is the best style of parenting because it is both teaching of moral conduct and consequences as well as catering to the emotional and mental needs of your child while still teaching them natural consequences and how to rightfully deal with problems.

Don Hermes has that style of parenting. He often sets rules, expectations, boundaries, and goals for Betty. He encourages her and is there to celebrate her and there to hold her hand when she fails.

Ironically enough, writing this post I realized that Armando has daddy issues, like I knew he had parental problems and how they shaped him but It hadn't hit me how deeply affected he was because of his father's absence :(

I bring Armando up right now because even though he isn't a girl he is the perfect example in the show of a child who grew up without a father's love while Betty is the perfect example of someone who did.

Why do I say all of this?

This brings us to the third and the final topic of this post:

You Have To Understand Your Characters:

What does this mean?

In order to write a four dimensional character you have to know them, like you would a friend or family member, through and through. I'm more likely giving too much credit to FG as Don Hermes was a secondary character, albeit one of the most important secondary characters, so it's likely he didn't really sit there and think about this mans childhood, how it affected him in raising a child, how he met Julia his wife, how he reacted when he found out he was going to be a father; in reality he probably based Don Hermes's parental and loving qualities around his own personal experience as a father and tried to understand where Don Hermes was coming from but again I don't know FG lol or seen any of his interviews, except for one, regarding YSBLF.

Personally how I go about writing and fleshing out my OC's is that I interview them. I come up with the concept of my character, you know the basics, goals, ambitions, fears, insecurities, description and so forth and then I go about asking them personal questions, from there on I go and think of their most traumatic experiences and how that shaped them, their best memory, do they have siblings? If they do how close? Are they close to their parents? What is their family life like? Lastly, after I understand these characters backstory I ask myself: What is the purpose of this character in this story? Do they play a vital role? Could I take them out and the story would keep going as if nothing or would it move the story?

When you understand your characters you understand why they behave a certain way. Being a writer who knows their characters pretty well makes writing the story in it of itself pretty easy because you understand where they are coming from. You understand the purpose of their words, why they stand the way they do. You understand in completion what makes the character themselves and in order to do that you must be well versed in their behavior.

What does this have to do with Don Hermes?

Simple: Don Hermes isn't a one dimensional, two dimensional, or even a three dimensional character. He is 4D.

What is his fear? That his daughter suffers.

What is his motivation? Being a good example to his daughter, leaving her with the best inheritance.

What is his ambition? To be a good member of society who upholds principal and ethical actions despite that not achieving riches.

What is his goal? To be a good father who sets a good example for his daughter so she may follow in his footsteps.

These are the basics. They give us a basic understanding of Don Hermes, right?

Now the final questions are:

If he is a good father why is Betty insecure? and how is it possible that his overbearing parenting style didn't negatively impact Betty?

When I write my analysis of scenes/episodes and focus on body language I always remind y'all that context is key. It is for absolutely everything in life.

By solely blaming Don Hermes for all of Betty's problems in reality you're taking away the responsibility that society has and plays the role of, in a young person's life.

What do I mean by this? And what does this have to do with understanding your character?

Well we're about to talk about my dear and sweet Betty and this is a part of her character I've been dying to talk about!

I, again, can speak on experience. As mentioned above, I grew up with a present father in my life. I am a daddy's girl. However I too grew up insecure.

Society has a lot to do with it.

Just like Betty, my father was over protective of me as a child. He wouldn't let me handle anything dangerous, would constantly tell me that people in the world had bad intentions and most importantly after a good cry he'd kiss my cheeks and tell me that he loved me very much and then shower me with surprise toys or crafting supplies.

Betty's dad was the exact same. When we get the flashback of him pulling her towards the house so she wouldn't play with the neighborhood kids he tells her: "That's why I bought you all your toys, so you can have fun. The devil is a pig, remember that." the meaning behind that wasn't only to tell Betty she'd be tempted to do something bad in reality he used it as telling her "The world is a terrible place with terrible people who will hurt you."

side note: I want to make it canon(now that I know what that means) that Don Hermes had a Corn collection. This doesn't really have anything to do with this post except it's about Don Hermes but that one day when he was telling Betty that she had her own kind of beauty and that men liked exotic beauty, after she left he told Julia that he was well versed because he kept up with the times and that's why he had that collection[of magazines] in their room, so he could keep up with modern days.

He knew the kids in the neighborhood bullied Betty, they didn't involve her in their games and he heard the whispers from parents around the neighborhood as well so in his own way, in his own terms, he protected Betty from rejection by taking the burden of being the one who prohibited her from mingling with the outside world, however the damage was there because in school Betty still had to deal with those rats.

In one of the first episodes, when Roman asked Betty to go out, Betty, giving the benefit of the doubt, agreed to go out however Don Hermes didn't want her to go out with Roman and Co. for two reasons: Betty could do better than him and his loser friends and to protect her from rejection. However the reason I bring this up is because Betty mentioned that Don Hermes took her out of public school and placed her in a convent when her friends started to get boyfriends. (I only saw the final episode, I skipped all the way to the end, so that I could be prepared to deal with the emotional pain of their breakup but I still haven't seen the second part, anyway)Don Hermes mentioned that he always wanted his daughter to be pristine(a virginia) and that he raised her to know that the most integral part of her was the center of her family.

For one I mentioned the AIDS epidemic for two reasons: that it would be a motive for him to be so, extremely, sheltering of Betty in regards of her socializing with people who could lead her down a path that could affect her in her health as well as ruin their moral and ethic standing(we see the way he scorned her when she was offered the commission). Not to mention that parents in countries that have a lot of conflict are often very strict in regards of their child's social life in fear that they could wind up dead, drug addict, delinquent, victim of human trafficking, and other things on the likes. I recently found this out while doing some research of El Salvador's music scene(there's some really good bands out there but bc of the conflict younger generations aren't active in the scene back there due to parents restrictions out of fear.). So while Don Hermes is old school in regards of his daughter maintaining her virginal status because it reflect good on their family and she is in god's grace, as well that keeping her away from people who could corroded those principals he's instilled in her, he also has other motives as to keep her on a short social leash. This reason and the one mentioned above in regard of trying to save her from suffering rejection and this is what I'll stress out in the following.

Both socially for their reputation, her mental, physical, and emotional protection, Don Hermes doesn't let Betty out of the house with anyone unless it's Nicolas because Don Hermes has practically watched him grow and in some way he's also been like a father figure to Nicolas. We understand where he's coming from now.

The reason I brought up what the effects of growing up with and without a present father in a girl's life is because we need to really understand the root of Betty's self-esteem and self-worth issues and to debunk the idea that Don Hermes is behind all of that we need to see and understand how a character with fatherless daughter disorder would be written and presented by understanding the effects of the child into adulthood. Seeing as Don Hermes was an active father of Betty's life in all three aspects of: Physically being present, emotionally, and mentally as well, which means he set up a good example of being a man, which is also a reason why Betty is attracted to Armando's personality because it is a love she knows, which doesn't cause her to be as afraid of him(I've explained this in previous post but I can't remember right now what they're titled, sorry.) So not only are we told from Betty's own words that her father is her most precious possession we also have facts to prove why that is and how much Don Hermes loves Betty and in his own way tries to protect her and shield her from danger and pain.

I'll answer why she's insecure in a bit.

Now in regards for understand characters, which brings this whole post full circle is very easy: Even if there wasn't a backstory written for a character, simply by understanding the basics of your character you can make a compelling character that is 4D, all by making his goals, fears, motives, ambitions, and desires realistic and it leaves just enough room for the reader to interpret and understand what the meaning of that character is for the story and the purpose it serves. That alone allows us to determine whether the character is good, worthy of redemption, and the lesson they are trying to teach us.

I rave about Armando, Mario, and even Marcela's(tho her not too much) and Betty's complexities but Don Hermes is a character who deserves to be defended! He is a good father who loves his daughter greatly.

Which is why we get such a contrast with Roberto. Roberto wasn't an emotionally or mentally present father in Armando's life. His love was always conditional. The day that both fathers find out about their children's borderline illegal business activities they both react so differently. Don Hermes decided that while he won't act like he approves or is okay with what Betty has done that he'll show face for her and that he'll make her deal with the consequences, however, that among all of that, she will always have a shoulder to cry on and lean her head on. While Roberto tells his son, who is in the brink of tears(I'll talk about that scene in due time cause boooooiii I gotta a lot to say!) that he never wants to speak to him again and basically that he's dead to him and walks out of the meeting room, he doesn't even tell him: What you did is bad and you have to face and deal with the consequences on your own but I still love you. Nah homes legit just said "Bye ur ded 2 meh."

Fernando knew his characters and their moral standing as well as purpose for the story and that alone is what separates these fathers and allows us as viewers to interpret their lives outside of the big screen(ikik he didn't expect it to be such a huge thing but let me boost this dead man's ego, too soon?).

And for the closing argument:

Betty's insecurities were not in part or any part, due to to her father. Who had an authoritative parent style —y'all should look those up if you want a further understanding of parental styles and what roles they have in the development of their child. While yes her social awkwardness is a consequence and domino effect of Don Hermes short leash, it is not fully and completely his fault.

They are in part and completely due to society and their treatment of her and that's the moral of showing a loving father and an insecure daughter.

Society rejected Betty for simply existing, without giving her the chance to be herself, to give love. Society taunted, teased, bullied, traumatized, and abused her and for what? To show power over her? To take out their own insecurities onto her? No matter how much her father could love her, how much he told her she was beautiful in her own way, who adored her and encouraged her to achieve her goals and set high expectations for herself, it was never enough because the outside world hated her for simply and only breathing!

Trying to blame Don Hermes, trying to point the finger to him is rejecting and neglecting the vitality of Fernando's commentary on society and the way it treats women, especially women who are not the status quo. Betty is only treated well, respected, and not made fun of by society when she no longer is "ugly" while she is still the same person within that she was from that start(more confident and sure of herself as a professional and a woman) society doesn't care, now she's pretty and it isn't until then that they think and believe she is deserving of human decency.

That's the whole point! That's the whole reason of Betty's role in the novela! The purpose of her character! That while she was ugly she was still so kind, loving, pure, and trying to see the good in others, despite the trauma she's faced in life. Society still deems to dehumanize her and cause her harm and it isn't until AFTER she has a physical transformation that they decide to treat her like a human!(I'm not directly talking about Marce, Patty, or Hugo and especially Daniel but rather society outside of Eco Moda.). The commentary of how society prefers mean, rude, selfish, and arrogant beautiful people rather that good, kind, loving, and selfless "ugly" people and if that moral of the story, which is the biggest reason of the story existing, doesn't translate to you, what are you doing?

Her lack of knowledge of men while is also a domino effect of her father's over protectiveness it also and in part the trauma of it, is because of society. Little girls who grew up being teased, bullied constantly over our looks that grow into teen and women hood still being bullied over our looks makes us feel un-womanly and undesired that even the small gesture of affection makes us believe that maybe we are worthy, not of love, but attention not only as women but human, is damaging! Again, dismissing this and blaming Don Hermes ignores the issues that society has and it takes away our responsibility and accountability in this issue.

I rest my case!

Don Hermes is a good father who is not to blame for Betty's insecurities or self-worth issues!

Husband... he isn't the best one.

I'd need to make a part two for that part of his character and right now I'm beat, sleep deprived again and my head and neck hurt as well as my back.

Again ignore any grammar mistakes.

Til next time! :)

[EDIT: There is so many obvious examples in the novela that prove how loving Don Hermes is towards Betty that I didn't mention in the post. Understanding the culture, the era, and his dynamic was a lot more important imo to talk about so it could explain his irrational behavior and the process of writing a character. It's a lot of research and really important to be able to have well written characters. If any of you would like to comment an instant in which Don Hermes showed how much he loved Betty, feel free to comment it :)]