Forum Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    what fresh hell is this?

Profile Information

  • Gender Female
  • Interests the art of U-Haul trucks; catsup; starting fires; amateur surgery
  1. Feminism - Distractingly Sexy Edition

    1. Is what you're describing necessarily not misogyny? I appreciate the point you're making about the insidious character of Trump's feelings toward women and agree, but I do think it falls under the umbrella of "misogyny." 2. The sexism denials/ apologies she makes are pretty odious, and damaging to women's rights, in my opinion, largely because they are coming from someone the industry helped portray as an activist for women. She has gone on record making the same sad ignorant defenses of sexism that feminism has been trying to fight against for ages (such as how employing women means someone can't be sexist, for example). I raised the issue of Ivanka not so much that the entire media should go against her on this. Rather, I think the outlets that have been building her up as a role model for women's empowerment-- largely the major women's magazines like Marie Claire, Glamour, Cosmo-- ought to re-evaluate whether she is truly helpful to that cause in light of her sexism apology and denial. Unlike more general news outlets, these publications have been aligning themselves increasingly with feminism and as advocates for women's rights (there are still some issues there, but for the most part, this is the way these mags have been branding themselves). As such, they'd have an incentive to distance themselves from Ivanka, if not address her problematic comments directly.
  2. Feminism - Distractingly Sexy Edition

    Hey, thanks for that article. I hadn't seen that one particularly, which does at least point out her misogyny apology. The criticisms of her that I'd come across tended to be along the lines of this Slate piece, more or less taking the attitude of "Ivanka's so awesome, so why is she backing her father?" This is the part that concerns me. Ever since she entered the spotlight back in the early 2000's, she's been quite fastidious about breaking the "spoiled brat, undeserving trust fund baby" stereotype. She has the gracious, poised, etiquette thing down to a science. To criticize her on most things-- especially character or earned level of success, for example-- makes the critic look like the jerk in light of this highly cultivated appearance. It's basically the Marg Tyrell model of influence andpower, and I do think this form of power is extremely potent. Whether it's genuine or a savvy business move to push her company (which happens to be about selling work clothes to women), her overall demeanor seems to have earned her a lot of favor from the media over time, and it's this appearance of perfect composure and graciousness that I suspect her strongest followers admire. But there has to be a way to more strongly condemn what's becoming, essentially,hermisogyny. I totally get that for a variety of reasons, the children of a candidate are seen as off-limits/ separate from their parent's campaign, and that Ivanka's cultivated a lot of favorability over the years that makes challenging her in particular undesirable to many. But I think that when the child of a misogynist candidate has cultivated a brand around the concept of women's empowerment, and then goes on to deny and normalize the candidate's misogyny on record, she and her brand need to be challenged strongly, and frankly, lose credibility. It's specifically that she holds herself up as some sort of authority on women's empowerment that this behavior goes beyond the acceptable limits. Her active participation in defending misogyny should harm her brand. I think blog pieces are good, but I'd really like to see some of the mass media (like the women's mags who have been raising her up as a role model-- I suspect those readers form the majority of her base) stop giving her airtime(Cosmois still holding her out as a women's empowerment authority as of 2 months ago, ffs), if notexplaining her misogyny apology for the sexism it is, and asking readers to put their love affair with this woman at least on hold or something. Writing in to the editors of those types of mags is one way I've been considering dealing with this, though I question the efficacy. I definitely think it will be tricky to navigate for those who choose to tackle this, but I think freezing her out of the mainstream-- at least on the specific issue of her image as a women's empowerment guru-- is possible and quite critical.
  3. Feminism - Distractingly Sexy Edition

    Has anyone come across a truly hard-hitting article that exposes Ivanka Trump's misogyny apology for what it is? From blog posts to more established media like Vanity Fair, it seems everything I see is downright fawning over this woman, who is basically an avowed supporter of racism and misogyny at this point (she's extremely involved in both Trump's campaign as well as explaining why he's also a feminist), and I'm struggling to understand why no one is giving her and her brand a harder time (that I can find, at least). At least in the fluffier, pop sphere, she'd become a darling of some mass media as feminist business guru of sorts. Major women's mags are constantly interviewing her for advice on how to be a successful woman in business, she runs a blog about "women's empowerment" (it's basically astream of bromides), and runs a "women who work" advocacy group. All of which alleges to support women-- it's become her "brand." I guess I have some anxiety over the fact that her calculated reasonable, gracious act and purported "women's empowerment" brand (shallow and meaningless as it may be) is not only a potential asset for Trump, but also doing a massive disservice to the struggle against sexism. She has kind of set herself up as a "tastemaker" expert of the business world, and has some degree of influence over her followers. So when she repeatedly reassures us that her father is actually a "feminist" (wtf), and cites such canards as "He's not misogynist because if he were he wouldn't have so many high-level women execs like myself" (paraphrased, but look up any interview with her post 2015)and the like, why isn't more of the media calling her out for this? Or how she plays off Trump's misogynistic remarks about Megyn Kelly and Fiorina by, essentially, saying that he's an equal-opportunity insult-giver, and it has nothing to do with their gender? (Despite how the insults themselves were super, gendered, of course.) I'm just getting really frustrated that I've yet to come across something that points out that she's essentially performing misogyny denial and endorsement, if not downright advocacy with these little defenses of her father. I kind of want to do something about this, but am not really sure what that should be.
  4. From aDwD: "Her ownfathergot this child on her? We are well rid of her, then. I will not suffer such abominations here. This is not Kings Landing....[Goat's milk is] poor fair for a prince...but better thanwhore's milk, aye." -- Stannis.
  5. Going off memory, the one regarding the kennel girl might be the likeliest of the scenarios where "whore" could have been thrown around (because Rams himself would not be with her), but I just don't see the fact that he didn't use that word to be poignant at all. Is there a directquote that leads you to believe the omission means the word is not in his vocabulary? Regarding the other examples, why would Rams have referred to Kyra-- who was one of Rams' "girls" and a hunted (i.e. "honored")party-- as a "whore?" Rams' doesn't call the women he's with "whores," ostensibly because it has a negative connotation about the men who's with them/ "owns" them in his view. Further, I don't see his not calling Lady Dustin a "whore" during that discussion with Roose to be a conspicuous omission either. Isn't this where Rams complains that she's haughty toward him, so he wonders aloud if she'd remain so haughty after he cuts off her breasts and feeds them to his "girls," as well as jokes about turning her into a(n inferior) pair of boots? idk, I kind of think that insult/ threat is way more relevant to the context and much stronger than flippantly calling her "whore." Whereas Mel is seen by many in story to be basically Stannis' concubine. He's not calling for anyone but Reek by name in that letter (everyone is asked for in relation to being Stannis', including the baby and Val), so he'd hardly do so in the case of Mel. How else would he describe her?Perhaps "His red witch," (which is also used), but "whore" deliversmore of an insult, and probably gets closer to what he'd believe her function actually was, wouldn't it? I'd also argue that in this series "whore" is such a throwaway word that it just doesn't seem like a significant clue. lol, I still can't resist the dulcet siren song of a pink letter thread. @Lord Varys Doesn't Stannis refer to Gilly as a "whore"? or am I misremembering.
  6. Isn't the way you're explaining this a point in favor of why Rams would choose a disrespectful word in this scenario? As in, whywould he be "honoring" this woman by referring to her by name? He hasn't hunted her (it's the successful hunt that's the context for Rams' "honor"), and she belongs/ belonged to Stannis, not Rams.' Why wouldn't a misogynistic sicko like Rams refer to a woman in a scenario where he was being derisive as a "whore?" I get that we don't see him literally say "whore" on page in front of Theon or Bran (I'm taking your word on this, I haven't checked). But can you point to a passage where it would have made sense for Rams to use that word, the absence of which becomes highly conspicuous in relation to this letter?
  7. I do think the purpose goes a step further to neutralizing Jon(they believe Jon is becoming active in politics thanks to the Arya mission, and is therefore a threat). But yea, I think "recovering Arya" is part of that, and very much the stated purposeof the letteras it's directly articulated.-- not trying to rouse Jon to anger or drawing him south or the like.
  8. Yes, the speech was designed to convince the Wildlings to his cause, but what gives you the impression he planned for or wanted a single Watchman to participate in his mission? I'd argue the speech was also designed precisely to dissuade the Watchmen from following him. That speech renders the idea of Watchmen joining his mission totally reprehensible. As a side point, what's the significance if Tormund was going to take even a handful of wildlings with him (not that this is suggested anywhere, but for argument's sake). It's very clear that Jon reconfigured the mission to be carried out by the Watch, as a Watch mission, with Tormund as the leader, and that he's clearly talking about giving Tormund Watchmen in that speech. If he had planned for any wildilngs on that mission, he'd have made a different speech.
  9. Lord Varys, I confess I'm having some difficulty understanding why this point is contentious. I quoted the aDwD text where this is explicitly stated (I downloaded it to my phone earlier in order to do so): As I quoted earlier, he states that "The ranging will be led by Tormund," so the idea that Tormund will lead the ranging to Hardhome is not my assumption. We know that"men" refers to Watchmen since the wildling men are not his to order around (whereas he's the LC of the Watch, the only men that could be said who belong to him at that point truly), made even more explicit by his statement further down the page that "TheWatchwill make for Hardhome." ETA: as to the rest, yes, I agree, he isn't yet the leader of the wildlings so he'd be ill-advised to just start ordering them around on missions before winning them over. And to that end, it is noteworthy thathedoesn't give them a rousing speech about joining Tormund on the Hardhome rescue to encourage them to that mission. Instead, he's delivering this personalized agit-prop to get them to follow him south/ deal with the Boltons. Which also tells us that getting the wildings to follow Tormund is not part of the plan, but winning them to a different mission is.
  10. I don't think it could be much clearer that Jon is sending the Watchman rangers to Hardhome under Tormund. Whether you agree with the wisdom of that move is another issue, but the"men" Jon is referring to is not unclear or ambiguous, especially in how he follows it up with "The Watch will go to Hardhome." The point I'm trying to get at is that Jon is conveniently removing the Watchmen who'd be most likely to stand with him and resist the Boltons away from the Wall, and hence, avoid the risk of Bolton confrontation. Sure, this scenario creates other problems and challenges, but it can easily be seen as preparation for Jon's detaching himself from the Watch (and vice versa). Again, sure, the Watch could be wiped out anyway, but the chances for that seem considerably less than if they all stood beside their traitorous LC. also, idk if Jon cares about being a "traitor" at this point. I think he's of the mind that no matter what he does, he's always going to be a wildling, traitor warg to some of these people, and finally comes to realize that just running with this identity so many come to expect from him is in his best interest to get things done (it keeps the Watch a bit safer from the south, gets him his wildlings, etc).
  11. "But now I find I cannot go to Hardhome. The ranging will be led by Tormund Giantsbane, known to you all. I have promised him as many men as he requires" (the "men" Jon would be promising are Watchmen). And then further down,"The NIght's Watch will make for Hardhome..." I think it's pretty clear that Tormund is leading Watchmen. I think you may be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Boltons might end up killing some Watchmen anyway, sure, but probably a hell of a lot fewer than without Jon making such a clear break from them. Can we at least agree that more Watchmen will be spared if the Rams shows up to the Wall without the rangers there to be heroes about it, and even possibly with the stewards and builders having chosen another LC, renouncing this "oathbreaking wildling warg"?
  12. The plan once the letter arrives is for Tormund to lead a force entirely comprised of the rangers to Hardhome. The wildlings were not to be involved in that mission any longer, but were conveniently left for Jon to win over with a rousing speech (wildlings don't get told to follow a man, the man must win them over first). I'm not so sure of that. I think the plan is that Jon was going to stop Rams from destroying the Watch or die trying, and that by involving none of the Watchmen-- men who'd remain at their posts and likely renounce their LC in the process-- would ultimately be spared. idk if the Boltons would necessarily destroythe entire Watch based on the actions of the LC, as LC's have been taken out by the realm in the past without destroying the whole Watch. I think that's largely why he wants those rangers-- the ones who might actually put up a fight for him against Boltons-- away from CB, and so arranges them to go with Tormund.
  13. I disagree. He'ssendingthe rangers-- the 1/3 of the Watch that's usually in his camp, who'd be most likely to back him on this-- off to Hardhome, which will ostensibly keep them away from whatever fallout from Jon's past and future actions may ensue. I don't have my books with me so I can't quote directly, but we also get Jon's interior monologue during the speech, where he takes ownership of his "crimes," and says something to the effect of "if this is oathbreaking the crime was his and his alone. No man can say I made my brothers break their vow." "No man," meaning, not merely "no Watchmen such as Bowen and Co," but also No Bolton, No Lannister, No clansman, No one. It's to say, "no one will blame my brothers for my actions, past and future." He pretty much said everything to sell this conundrum-- which, let's face it, is actually quite relevant to the Watch, and which they'd be arguably justified in answering-- as a personal issue rather than a Watch issue. He's purposely distancing himself from the Watch and endearing himself to the wildlings. ETA: regarding marching South, I suspect he's thinking more in terms of an ambush/ interception or trickery than full battle, or, least likely, any sort of siege of storming of WF itself. I fear there's a misunderstanding. I was pointing out that contrary to Jon's announcement to go south, nothing in that letterleads to the rational, strategic conclusion to do so. As in, the Boltons (or whoever one believe the author to be)weren't trying to elicit that reaction, having written nothing in the letter that would elicit that reaction. I was speaking to what appears to be a fairly common interpretation of the letter as luring or enticing or enraging Jon toward Winterfell (and/ or rescuing Arya). I'm pointing out that the letter doesn't really do that.
  14. This might be going beyond the topic of this thread, but I'm not really sure that's what's Jon's thinking or doing in that chapter. I don't think he plans to actually go to Winterfell either (at least, not to march on WF and conduct a siege). I get that he tells the Shieldhall this is his plan, but based on Jon's previous thoughts about battle strategy and what this letter is actually saying about the state of affairs (that Arya isn't even there to rescue, for example), I don't think the plan he announced is exactly what he's truly intending. I think the Shieldhall speech had everything to do with distancing himself from the Watchmen (giving the Watchmen every reason to reject him and owning his "crimes," so the Boltons should ostensibly leave them alone), while hitting every note that would rouse Wilings to his cause. As it pertains to the letter, I think Jon's announcement to march south in defiance is not whatthe Boltons would have expected, as nothing in the letter really points to that as a particularly logical, strategicresponse (Arya isn't there, after all, by the letter's own admission), or even something that being called a few names would truly incite even the most egregious hotheadto do given the stakes.
  15. [mod] As ever, show discussion belongs on the show forums. [/mod]