Would Daenerys find John Snow attractive?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

How do you think that came about? Curious question, at one point, women must've been happy with their position and then it stuck. Then, whereas the male position started to change, the female position stagnated as housewife.

You did not just say this. You did. Not.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Uh, you basically said that if women lacked political power, education and equality, it was our own damn fault because at some point we surely must have agreed to accept that.

[Arkantos]

You did not just say this. You did. Not.

Uh, you basically said that if women lacked political power, education and equality, it was our own damn fault because at some point we surely must have agreed to accept that.

No no, you misunderstand.

I meant that at some point it was equal and everyone was happy, but then the male role changed and the female role didn't, no reasons were given, I was just wondering how it happened.

As I said on another thread, I find it had to articulate things when tired, let's blame that.

[James Arryn]

How do you think that came about? Curious question, at one point, women must've been happy with their position and then it stuck. Then, whereas the male position started to change, the female position stagnated as housewife.

What makes you think there was ever an agreement? Slavery was also true if most of human history...did the slaves at some point think 'good deal'?

I will say this; I think a lot of what we see as history of sexism as a consciously exclusionary mindset wasn't. I think a lot of it was along the lines of Randall Tarly or Roman Republic...greater social input was given to those who could most effectively defend that society. In that way men who were physically unwilling or unable would be as devalued as women. In that way I think it was less malicious than it could later be seen. I think it possible/probable that for many the other causes for prejudice would still have been in play, but I do think there is this element which mitigates the aspect for some.

That said, it's effect on the oppressed probably wasn't experientially different than if it were entirely malicious, by and large, and there were so many

expansions and manifestations of the difference and a harmful mindset which developed in accordance that my point eventually becomes fairly academic.

I am willing to concede an arguably just society where those who defend it have greater control over decisions like 'do we go to war' and so forth, and I say this being someone who can only imagine very specific situations in which I would be willing or able to be one of those people. I do not know if I would want to live in such a society...I merely acknowledge that I could see it as arguably just.

I think technology will increasingly make this a gender neutral hypothetical.

though, and this is me trying to find some common ground with thinking I can't really relate to.

Outside of that. I think sexism, like racism, religious prejudice and all other forms of same are merely manifestations of an entirely endemic human willingness to exploit others along any lines made available to them, and this is why I agree with Apple that preemptive counter-balancing is a very dangerous approach.

I just meant nature in general.

Me too.

[James Arryn]

No no, you misunderstand.

I meant that at some point it was equal and everyone was happy, but then the male role changed and the female role didn't, no reasons were given, I was just wondering how it happened.

As I said on another thread, I find it had to articulate things when tired, let's blame that.

I don't see the basis for a belief that it was ever equal or happy. Do you mean Eden or similar?

[danm_999]

No no, you misunderstand.

I meant that at some point it was equal and everyone was happy, but then the male role changed and the female role didn't, no reasons were given, I was just wondering how it happened.

Because men stopped the female role from changing.

I mean, it's not like ASOIAF isn't riddled with examples of women who want to fight, or lead, or be something other than a cook/cleaner/whore/breeder. It's that the men who run the show, in all but a few rare cases, stop them from doing so.

Look at how Viserys told Daenerys she was a bartering chip to seal his claim to the throne. Look at how Randyll Tarly told Brienne she had no business being out and about, and that if she got raped it was her fault. Look at how even Catelyn and Septa Mordane treat Arya, making her feel bad or wrong because she doesn't like doing things society has proscribed as gender appropriate.

[LoyalStarkBannerman]

Thread needs more egalitarianism. Take the feminist/masculinist crap elsewhere, please.

[Arkantos]

What makes you think there was ever an agreement? Slavery was also true if most of human history...did the slaves at some point think 'good deal'?

I was referring to the baseline for civilization, hunter gathering society. Generally, men went out and hunted, women stayed closer to camp gathering berries, looking after kids and all that. Then the male role changed and the women just remained in the same sort of setting, I just wondered how that happened. Or maybe the male role didn't change at all, they just got fancier stuff to play with.

I will say this; I think a lot of what we see as history of sexism as a consciously exclusionary mindset wasn't. I think a lot of it was along the lines of Randall Tarly or Roman Republic...greater social input was given to those who could most effectively defend that society. In that way men who were physically unwilling or unable would be as devalued as women. In that way I think it was less malicious than it could later be seen.

Well you needed to be seen as a big strong man to have widespread trust in military issues, I see nothing inherently wrong with that, other than strength doesn't make you smart, but you know, general public...

That said, it's effect on the oppressed probably wasn't experientially different than if it were entirely malicious, by and large, and there were so many expansions and manifestations of the difference that my point eventually becomes fairly academic.

But if it isn't malicious, then it's different, even if the outcome is the same.

I am willing to concede an arguably just society where those who defend it have greater control over decisions like 'do we go to war' and so forth, and I say this being someone who can only imagine very specific situations in which I would want to be one of those people.

Which I suppose is one of the reasons men ruled initially.

I think technology will increasingly make this a gender neutral hypothetical. though, and this is me trying to find some common ground with thinking I can't really relate to.

If you posit that men are more warlike and war drives technological progress then it would lead you to the wrong conclusion that females couldn't have made the same discoveries, so you can see why some people get confuzzled. It doesn't help when some women call men warlike savages or w/e either.

Outside of that. I think sexism, like racism, religious prejudice and all other forms of same are merely manifestations of an entirely endemic human willingness to exploit others along any lines made available to them, and this is why I agree with Apple that preemptive counter-balancing is a very dangerous approach.

It's not really pre-emptive if you're replying to someone else's fallacious argument.

Me too.

So why say human nature? That just threw me a little.

[Arkantos]

Because men stopped the female role from changing.

I mean, it's not like ASOIAF isn't riddled with examples of women who want to fight, or lead, or be something other than a cook/cleaner/whore/breeder. It's that the men who run the show, in all but a few rare cases, stop them from doing so.

Look at how Viserys told Daenerys she was a bartering chip to seal his claim to the throne. Look at how Randyll Tarly told Brienne she had no business being out and about, and that if she got raped it was her fault. Look at how even Catelyn and Septa Mordane treat Arya, making her feel bad or wrong because she doesn't like doing things society has proscribed as gender appropriate.

At what point though. Certainly many men would have tried to stop it when it had already been a part of their culture for millennia, but before that, how did it get to that point?

I don't see the basis for a belief that it was ever equal or happy. Do you mean Eden or similar?

I don't see the basis for a belief that it wasn't, unless you're saying that men are inherently oppressors?

Look at random tribes who still manage to do the whole hunter gatherer thing, they seem content with their lot.

[James Arryn]

I was referring to the baseline for civilization, hunter gathering society. Generally, men went out and hunted, women stayed closer to camp gathering berries, looking after kids and all that. Then the male role changed and the women just remained in the same sort of setting, I just wondered how that happened. Or maybe the male role didn't change at all, they just got fancier stuff to play with.

I am less versed on anthro than other aspects, but I have never gotten the sense that it was an everyone opt in kind if deal. In the same way physically stronger men dominated physically weaker men, men tended to dominate women. I don't think this was ever an equally voluntary process, but I admit I am a little hazy on commonly accepted concepts about this phase of development.

Well you needed to be seen as a big strong man to have widespread trust in military issues, I see nothing inherently wrong with that, other than strength doesn't make you smart, but you know, general public...

Yeah.I kinda regret bringing this up, though. it's pretty abstract. it's just something that's occurred to me lately

as a sort of admission...a few years ago I would have militantly argued against this kind of concept. But taking into account period priorities, and thinking of modern models like Israel, I have gradually conceded a willingness to entertain notions like a universally applied x years of some kind of service (military or other) as a precept for political currency, and or an idea that in a war type scenario, the people we're expecting to pay the greatest price should have a greater say in whether/how we pay it. These still aren't things I am entirely comfortable with, and I only raised them because I was trying to avoid a knee jerk reaction to some of your points, and I think it lead us astray.

But if it isn't malicious, then it's different, even if the outcome is the same.

Eh, arguably, but I was saying that was an element, not that it covered the norm or majority. I think it was mostly...if not malicious, at least party to exploitation.

Which I suppose is one of the reasons men ruled initially.

I have sincere doubts that it was ever that thought out as a whole. I was talking more along poli-sci hypotheticals, and as I said, think I did us both us disservice by raising it.

If you posit that men are more warlike and war drives technological progress then it would lead you to the wrong conclusion that females couldn't have made the same discoveries, so you can see why some people get confuzzled. It doesn't help when some women call men warlike savages or w/e either.

I don't posit that men are more warlike, though. I mean, nature/nurture, to a degree...but that's about it, for me.

It's not really pre-emptive if you're replying to someone else's fallacious argument.

This part of my post wasn't a response to you, but I don't necessarily mean that as an agreement on fallacy.

So why say human nature? That just threw me a little.

Because I think you are ascribing claim and blame to teams IMO only divided in the first place by circumstance, and if reversed would lead to the same place, more or less. So if you think in terms of that divide, own the ride. All of it. if, like me, you see universally human reasons for the problems, then you can't assume otherwise for the accomplishments. If women would have 'lead' us to the same problems like war, etc. because that's human nature, then it only makes sense to assume they would have ''lead' to civilization as well.

[brzibrzi]

I think Danny would find Jon physically atractive and would even respect him as a good leader (formerly LC and whatever sort of leader he will undoubtedly become after his "death") but he can't compete with Daario's skill and Drogo's confidence when it comes to women. Danny wants someone who knows what he wants and knows what he's doing.

[The Idiots Lantern]

At what point though. Certainly many men would have tried to stop it when it had already been a part of their culture for millennia, but before that, how did it get to that point?

When the first cave man discovered his arm was stronger then the cave woman's arm which meant he could hold her down and rape and kill her if he wanted to. This meant she was in his power, so he could have sex whenever he wanted it. He liked this arrangement and has been trying to preserve it ever since.

....this may be a drastic, drastic oversimplification. But it's probably the bare bones of the thing.

[James Arryn]

I don't see the basis for a belief that it wasn't, unless you're saying that men are inherently oppressors?

No. I am saying that many humans will naturally exploit other humans along whatever lines are available to them. While conceding that I can conceive of an arguably just reasoning for people who defend a society having more power in that society, I am saying that I think that concession is rather abstract to the reality, and that exploitation of one kind or another was inevitable. I don't think gender or race or w/e differentiated us any more than as an opportunity. I think black people and women would have exploited white people and men just as much if the shoe was on the other foot, but I also think they would have achieved civilization along the same lines. I think we have a few genetic differences, but other than that are only distinct by virtue of socialization.

Look at random tribes who still manage to do the whole hunter gatherer thing, they seem content with their lot.

Maybe. I do not trust our metrics on this, or their ability to communicate unhappiness to us if they feel it. I do not feel qualified to use them as en example either way.

[danm_999]

I was referring to the baseline for civilization, hunter gathering society. Generally, men went out and hunted, women stayed closer to camp gathering berries, looking after kids and all that.

This view has been junked as a generalization in anthropological circles for a few decades now TBH. Very off topic here.

[Lyanna Stark]

No no, you misunderstand.

I meant that at some point it was equal and everyone was happy, but then the male role changed and the female role didn't, no reasons were given, I was just wondering how it happened.

As I said on another thread, I find it had to articulate things when tired, let's blame that.

You wonder what happened? How about doing some actual reading, then you might learn, instead of spouting bullshit which btw is off topic for this thread. And "reading" does not mean "bullshit evo psych" either btw.

Thread reporting for being massively off topic, too, not to mention offensive to everyone with a brain.

[Arkantos]

I am less versed on anthro than other aspects, but I have never gotten the sense that it was an everyone opt in kind if deal. In the same way physically stronger men dominated physically weaker men, men tended to dominate women. I don't think this was ever an equally voluntary process, but I admit I am a little hazy on commonly accepted concepts about this phase of development.

All I know, is that there have been at least some modern hunter-gatherers where it was pretty equal, just with different roles.

As we don't have a time machine, I think it's unfair to say it was an oppressive society from the get-go on the basis that men are naturally stronger and it's in human nature.

Yeah.I kinda regret bringing this up, though. it's pretty abstract. it's just something that's occurred to me lately

as a sort of admission...a few years ago I would have militantly argued against this kind of concept. But taking into account period priorities, and thinking of modern models like Israel, I have gradually conceded a willingness to entertain notions like a universally applied x years of some kind of service (military or other) as a precept for political currency, and or an idea that in a war type scenario, the people we're expecting to pay the greatest price should have a greater say in whether/how we pay it. These still aren't things I am entirely comfortable with, and I only raised them because I was trying to avoid a knee jerk reaction to some of your points, and I think it lead us astray.

They aren't really "my points", they're the sort of points a guy would make if he were seriously arguing this, but I'm just trying to get some new view points and stuff out of it, make people think about it, keep me awake.

I don't posit that men are more warlike, though. I mean, nature/nurture, to a degree...but that's about it, for me.

I never said you did, but I was just referring to what a lot of people say, "men cause all the wars", "if women ruled it'd be peaceful forever", y'know, that stupid stuff, I probably should've left that out.

Because I think you are ascribing claim and blame to teams IMO only divided in the first place by circumstance, and if reversed would lead to the same place, more or less. So if you think in terms of that divide, own the ride. All of it. if, like me, you see universally human reasons for the problems, then you can't assume otherwise for the accomplishments. If women would have 'lead' us to the same problems like war, etc. because that's human nature, then it only makes sense to assume they would have ''lead' to civilization as well.

I'm not ascribing anything to teams, I think I'm just not getting myself across very well, or people are misreading, I think all humans are the same.

We all are stupid fucks, well, apart from me.

When the first cave man discovered his arm was stronger then the cave woman's arm which meant he could hold her down and rape and kill her if he wanted to. This meant she was in his power, so he could have sex whenever he wanted it. He liked this arrangement and has been trying to preserve it ever since.

....this may be a drastic, drastic oversimplification. But it's probably the bare bones of the thing.

Then again, maybe the female saw that he brought in the biggest haunches of meat and thus seduced him, who knows? Let him think he's in control.

This view has been junked as a generalization in anthropological circles for a few decades now TBH. Very off topic here.

What's wrong with generalization, do you want me to write an article on this?

You wonder what happened? How about doing some actual reading, then you might learn, instead of spouting bullshit which btw is off topic for this thread. And "reading" does not mean "bullshit evo psych" either btw.

Thread reporting for being massively off topic, too, not to mention offensive to everyone with a brain.

How about you calm the fuck down. Quick to anger, slow to comprehend, jeez.

[James Arryn]

...

This is incredibly unfair of me, because you paid me the compliment of considering my points and responding, but I am only now becoming aware of how far off the path we have deviated, and how it is annoying others, so I think we should discontinue this for now. I can get easily into debates for their own sake and lose a sense of geography.

Maybe we can take it up later via PM or in another thread. I hope you won't feel like I'm leaving you out to hang, as that's sincerely not my intent, but I can see how I might feel that way if I went to the trouble of responding to be met by this. I don't even want to make a general 'agree to disagree' because I think that

would seem even more dismissive.

[Arkantos]

This is incredibly unfair of me, because you paid me the compliment of considering my points and responding, but I am only now becoming aware of how far off the path we have deviated, and how it is annoying others, so I think we should discontinue this for now. I can get easily into debates for their own sake and lose a sense of geography.

Maybe we can take it up later via PM or in another thread. I hope you won't feel like I'm leaving you out to hang, as that's sincerely not my intent, but I can see how I might feel that way if I went to the trouble of responding to be met by this. I don't even want to make a general 'agree to disagree' because I think that

would seem even more dismissive.

Ah don't worry about it, we didn't derail the thread, we just didn't put it back on the tracks ^>^

I'll just find something else to occupy me, was a fun discussion though.

[James Arryn]

Ah don't worry about it, we didn't derail the thread, we just didn't put it back on the tracks ^>^

I'll just find something else to occupy me, was a fun discussion though.

Lol, yeah, the discussion was already there when I joined in...I just didn't realize how tangential it was until I went to another forum and came back and tried to find the thread this discussion was in. That was eye opening. :)

[The Idiots Lantern]

Dany wants to be taken care of and Jon likes women who prefer to take care of themselves. She wants to be cuddled and fawned over, he wants to walk around brooding with his dog.

And to return to our previous line of inquiry, THIS is the line of reasoning that I find repellant, and not just because I personally disagree with the allegation that Dany "wants to be taken care of." (She may feel "entitled" to the throne but she doesn't want it for the pretty gowns and the nice digs and the servants to feed and bathe and clean up after her. She's not playing Pretty Pretty Princess over here.) Val and Ygrette and Dany all live very different lives and have developed different skills to navigate them.