Beardy the Wildling

You may have noticed I never actually said I disliked the inclusion of patriarchy/oppressive systems. In fact, the raw depiction of these things, both book and early seasons of the show, are definitely one of the series's strengths. No, the problems come in with the differing motives for showing these things between GRRM and D&D, and how these differences in motive have bled through onto the screen. The main reason one can tell that D&D don't care about realism in this world is that these systems of patriarchy and oppression are inconsistent. So, for example, Randyll Tarly, an established buyer-in to rigid gender roles to the point of threatening to kill his first-born over him not adhering to dominant masculine roles, and who is forcing his daughter into an arranged marriage with a far older man due to viewing her as a possession and little more, is not only magically okay with his wife talking back to him, but will actually call her a 'good woman' for doing so. Another example is Cersei Lannister; as a queen dowager, she has little real power, as she's not married to the king, is merely his mother. This reluctance to give a woman power is the centre of her resentment of the system, that and the Tyrells and Faith Militant, who can use the system to their advantage with marriage and humiliation respectively, are encroaching upon her. So, how does she solve this? By blowing the Vatican the fuck up. And suddenly, the realm's problems with queen dowagers having any say over the kingdom is magically gone, all signs of what should have been a succession crisis is gone and Cersei wins. Another example is the notoriously sexist culture of the Dothraki magically being okay with being ruled, not just by a woman, not just a woman that wasn't born Dothraki, but a woman who'd just burned their holy place down. Or how about Dorne, who went from (apparently) a culture ruled by 'weak men' to one that was magically okay with backstabbing, kinslaying women taking over, because feminism. And that's not even going into how the universe seems to bend over backwards to make Arya Stark and Lyanna Mormont correct all of the time. So, if the universe isn't actually consistent in how it's depicting oppressive systems, if the 'realism' excuse isn't the reason for all of this violence and brutality, what's the real reason all this shit is depicted? Simple. Edginess. Because sex and rape and violence is 'cool' and that's what all the edgy, 'pushing the envelope' writers do. The defining example of this is Sansa's 'marriage strike' and subsequent rape by Ramsay Bolton. Not only did this not happen in the books, not only was there a better story there (Sansa learns from Littlefinger how to be a political player in the Vale), not only does it make no sense from any perspective (legitimise your enemy's claim to the North to take back the North!), not only does it result in a gratuitous rape scene that establishes... what, Ramsay Bolton likes rape (?), but it also... doesn't make sense from the perspective of there being a patriarchal system and patriarchal residents within. Let me explain; Littlefinger is a possessive, sexist man. Of this there is no doubt. Both in the books and in the show, he considers 'lost loves' largely replaceable, has a massive entitlement complex, and sells women against their wills willy-nilly. And what is it that Littlefinger likes about Sansa more than anything? She resembles a young Catelyn Tully, and she's his. Patriarchy's (slightly) positive side-effect is a man's protectiveness of their women, and Littlefinger just ain't letting Sansa go. That's why in the books he keeps her with him at all times in the Vale. So even if the show was interested in showing the dire effects of patriarchy, they could still do it by keeping her in the Vale. No, the true rationale behind Sansa's rape was, essentially, they need a recognisable actress for Ramsay to rape so they could set up their own lame rape revenge plotline. Not only that, but according to D&D, Sansa was not developed enough to be a kind person, she hadn't 'been through' enough to be a true hero. Arya was 'already there', but Sansa 'had to' go through some trauma. Why is Sansa the inferior sibling? Well, she didn't, at the time, kill people with a shit-eating smirk on her face. Now to get onto the pertinent issue: Do D&D hate femininity? This brings up your other point about men being defined as nothing but badasses. Yes, this is sexist too, and yes, it's sexist towards men, because whenever D&D bring up admirable traits in men, they almost always come down to how aggressive and violent they are. Jon is awesome because he charges into battle recklessly, Ramsay is 'more admirable than Joffrey... like... he fights...', Sam's a bigger and better person for buying into his father's philosophy that all maesters do is 'read about the works of better men'. This then extends to women and femininity... namely, they don't really like it all that much. Sansa is lame because she didn't have any rape revenge to go after, and only became good after leaving Ramsay to dogs while smirking, Arya is the most awesome grill ever because she kills with a shit-eating grin, Brienne now uses 'woman' as an insult while being degraded from a gentle, chivalrous being to a brutish transman, Lyanna Mormont is awesome for scoffing at very necessary feminine wartime roles like knitting socks, etc The list goes on and on. It's not the inclusion of inflammatory scenes, some of which involve violence against women, that make D&D sexist. It's their rationale, the feelings they're trying to get across: That being feminine is something women must shed to be awesome, that real men never forgo violence, that in order to be respected, women must act like stereotypical testosterone-poisoned men. And yeah, that's sexist against... pretty much everyone. And yes, it means on some level they hate femininity.

Oh God, who is this guy, and why is he spouting this weird stream of consciousness? Some advice for you, Mister Bombadil; even if you're just having a joke, keep it relevant to the topic at hand. This feels really out of left field. And what's this shit about Gaia and 'Order out of a controlled Chaos' and God's freaking will? I mean, this is truly bizarre, the kind of impromptu craziness that only comes around every now and then. It's genuine, though, and it's a delight to see a genuine crazy person amongst all the attention-seeking tryhards.

Except murdering your brother-in-law/nephew magically makes a woman equal in status to a man in GoT's moronic 'world', and similarly blowing up the Vatican while smirking or burning down the only holy establishment a bunch of hyper-sexist barbarians have also makes you magically equal in status to a man in Weisseroff, despite the fact that Margaery was apparently going to have to do a walk of atonement for so much as having self-pride and being a woman (as well as not having enough child sex) and all of the gratuitous background rape/whorehouse scenes that are there because 'that's just the world, man, it's rough'. The patriarchy/religious dominance/Night's Watch Vows/literally any oppressive law/cultural nuance in Westeros is so subject to change depending on D&D's creative 'sense' (ie: What they want to happen) that all of this 'women on top' bullshit is nothing meaningful. I entirely mean it as an insult when I say the Wachowskis write more nuanced takes on resistance narratives. Catelyn Stark, both book and show, and Book!Sansa show what shrewd resistance within the system looks like, and guess what? It's not just hypermasculine, 'kill everybody because it's cool' bullshit, or getting raped to get revenge against the Boltons (wut?). The show has consistently failed at portraying femininity as anything other than a 'lame' thing that holds women back, and portrayed hypersexuality or hypermascuclinity as the only meaningful way to 'honourably' deal with a problem. You know what would be realistic, if Weisseroff was truly the awesome, consistent grimdark setting you seem to think it is? Arya would have been spotted during her dumb Frey pies schtick, and killed. Dornish guards would have seen Ellaria's usurping attempt and killed her, because it turns out they don't like the thought of a woman in power (never mind the whole 'kinslaying' thing, that seems to be in in Weisseroff). But nope; to D&D, female empowerment means letting women kill lots of people gratuitously or use their sexual wiles to manipulate men to kill lots of people gratuitously. They're not really a smart bunch; it seems they can only quantify a character's worth by how well they kill people. Incidentally, that seems to be your position, given you place so much emphasis on men being 'badass' too as justification for this toxic tripe.

Come on, goldenmaps, stop living in the past, man! Live in the present moment, dude! It's not like what happened in Season 2 matters any more.

And as I said, if he comes back from the dead and the universe winds up bending 9001 different ways to serve Jon in the books, I'll happily put the books down, say it's jumped the shark, and give up on aSoIaF.

The episode where Jon met Gendry was really eye-rolling too. Gendry magically starting to give a fuck about lineage and deciding that because Bobby B was his dad (his dad he never hinted at trying to imitate beforehand) and Sean Bean was Jon Snow's dad, they should automatically become bezzies. Heck, even Kit Harrington looks a little uncomfortable at Gendry's aggressive overtures of forced friendship, like even he can't hide how hideously unnatural it all is.

I didn't think this was GRRM's theme as much as D&D's, given they obviously ship Cersei and Jaime, as opposed to depicting it as an unhealthy relationship, and they depict Daenerys as a Mary Sue, as opposed to a possibly mad, possibly incompetent imposer into others' cultures, not to mention they really seemed to get off on boatsex, probably because aunt and nephew were both of age and hot. D&D put the 'in' in incest!

This is the thing a lot of people forget; the actual mechanics of how inbreeding increases genetic defects. There needs to be a genetic defect in the system already, inbreeding just increases the chances of pre-existing defects being expressed. Of course, one could argue Targ madness was in the line since Daenys the Dreamer, so their inbreeding likely did exacerbate this nature. Not to mention Cleopatra's lineage also contained the stunted, cleft-palated Tutankhamen. And most inbred royal lineages have some recurring genetic defect; haemophilia, porphyria, mental illness like dementia (likely alzheimer's), etc.

Wun Wun himself requires cg already, that's why I was asking about the budgetary difference between Wun Wun alone and Wun Wun with a log.

Now I'm curious; how much more does it cost to have a giant wielding a log compared to having the giant alone? Did the wight polar bear really break the bank that much?

Except he used a log in Hardhome, Angel Eyes literally mentioned a time Wun Wun used a weapon.

Bran: He loved him, and he loved him. Ghost's rebellion was based on a lie.

Hodor: Hodor Aerys: BURN THEM ALL Hodor: Hodor Aerys: BURN THEM ALL! Hodor: Hodor? Aerys: BURN THEM ALL! Meanwhile, D&D receive best writing for the 2019 emmies.

I kinda feel bad for only exacerbating the off-topic posts. I really am an argumentative blighter, aren't I?

Jon was so preoccupied with fighting with the army he had that he forgot to provision his army. This disdain for provisions is why Lyanna Mormont suggested crowning him King of the North afterwards; she hates knitting and socks too. As far as she sees it, if you can't fight without provisions, you're not a real person.