Parts of the Series You Have Trouble Taking Seriously

[Winter Rose Crown]

also I'm literally laughing thatsomeone thinks Islam is the only patriarchal "society". (it is a religion fwiw, not a" society".)

[Jasta11]

6 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

The way the Unsullied are created. When I first read it actually sent me into a laughing fit. I wonder if the first draft had them also kill a newborn kitten and a bunny rabbit in additional to the baby and the dog they have raised from a pup.

That too. The Unsullied training would yield a small handful of unbreakable super-soldiers, and a veritable army of PTSD-laden wrecks crumbling at the first signs of a fight. To say nothing of how eunuchs are apparently able to fight toe to toe with testosterone-fueled soldiers, or how they haven't overthrown the Masters despite being the city's only real fighting force for millenia.

[Iris Purpurea]

15 hours ago, lancerman said:

Dude this is a series where the writer actually made a reference to the Giants beating the 2007 Patriots in one of his recounting of history. Just take it as humor.

I do know there's lots of fun references but to me those are more subtle,  this one just seemed too blatant for me. But yeah,  I'll take the humour

[Light a wight tonight]

Lots of things to do with measurement are screwy. Just about anything to do with the wall is especially so. We have fat Sam riding the cage to the top because he "dislikes" the climb. I don't see that he could be able to make the climb at all. Not in one day.

And the cage makes little sense. There's no mention of any counterbalance system. They're winching it up to the top by main force. Do you have any idea of how much a chain that long would weight? They would be winching that up along with the cage, full weight with the cage at the bottom, decreasing as the cage rises. I just don't think this is possible. And I rather doubt that they could anchor the winch securely into the ice that the wall's made of. 

[Orphalesion]

Actually men and women respond similarly to pain (remember ladies have to  give birth) and pain threshold seems to be more of a thought than a biological thing, so Asha, growing up in a warrior culture as a warrior would be more resilient to pain than let's say a male Mater from Meereen who lives his life surrounded by soft cushions and perfume.

I agree that, on average, men tend to have a higher body strength (while women tend to have a higher endurance) this however is so minimal that it can be overcome with training, a woman who does vigorous, psychical training every day of her life could easily beat an average guy to a pulp, I agree Brienne is a very realistic character, though I think Asha is less so (though as others have said, nothing unrealistic about her commanding an army) 

My problem with the way the stereotypical, breeches wearing, sword wielding rebellious princess "who's just as good as fighting as any man!!!11!!one!!2!", mostly the way less skilled writers use them, is that by itself I think this character is actually a misogynistic concept.

Think about it; it basically says, to be strong and worth anything, a woman has to strip herself of all femininity and adopt and aggressive, martial, stereotypically masculine persona. If you don't then you are a "worthless damsel in distress". This reeks of "man=good", "woman=useless" and more than anything betrays the underlying, deeply set misogyny that's still strong in our society.

This ignores the strength and achievements of real life historical women who mgith not have taken up a sword and bashed the enemy's head in, but who survived calamities, hardships and pain, thrived in society and in their chosen careers without shedding their femininity and relying on different strength. 

It is also a distressing aspect of a larger problem in our society that mistakes gentleness for weakness in both men and women. You need to damn strong to be gentle and stronger yet to remain gentle.

An example from these forums is Arya being celebrated for dismissing the "useless" "dainty" skill of needlework. Well check this out, smartypants; what does a knight or warrior out on a martial campaign have to do if his clothes rip? Does he run home to his dainty lady to have them mended? No, he has to do it himself. And so does Asha and so would the little brat if she becomes a warrior. Same with cooking and cleaning up after themselves. One of the first things a soldier learns is to take care of, clean and iron his uniform. because there aren't any "dainty ladies" to do it for him.

I'm not against martial female characters, but I am against being exalted as "better" and "more feminist" than those characters who fill more traditional female roles or exhibit traditional feminine characteristics, but who are equally strong or stronger in character and mind.

[VVSINGOFTHECROSS]

12 hours ago, Elaflynts said:

......I may have written this after a half a bottle of wine lol 

Aha all good.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

Actually men and women respond similarly to pain (remember ladies have to  give birth) and pain threshold seems to be more of a thought than a biological thing, so Asha, growing up in a warrior culture as a warrior would be more resilient to pain than let's say a male Mater from Meereen who lives his life surrounded by soft cushions and perfume.

I agree that, on average, men tend to have a higher body strength (while women tend to have a higher endurance) this however is so minimal that it can be overcome with training, a woman who does vigorous, psychical training every day of her life could easily beat an average guy to a pulp, I agree Brienne is a very realistic character, though I think Asha is less so (though as others have said, nothing unrealistic about her commanding an army) 

My problem with the way the stereotypical, breeches wearing, sword wielding rebellious princess "who's just as good as fighting as any man!!!11!!one!!2!", mostly the way less skilled writers use them, is that by itself I think this character is actually a misogynistic concept.

Think about it; it basically says, to be strong and worth anything, a woman has to strip herself of all femininity and adopt and aggressive, martial, stereotypically masculine persona. If you don't then you are a "worthless damsel in distress". This reeks of "man=good", "woman=useless" and more than anything betrays the underlying, deeply set misogyny that's still strong in our society.

This ignores the strength and achievements of real life historical women who mgith not have taken up a sword and bashed the enemy's head in, but who survived calamities, hardships and pain, thrived in society and in their chosen careers without shedding their femininity and relying on different strength. 

It is also a distressing aspect of a larger problem in our society that mistakes gentleness for weakness in both men and women. You need to damn strong to be gentle and stronger yet to remain gentle.

An example from these forums is Arya being celebrated for dismissing the "useless" "dainty" skill of needlework. Well check this out, smartypants; what does a knight or warrior out on a martial campaign have to do if his clothes rip? Does he run home to his dainty lady to have them mended? No, he has to do it himself. And so does Asha and so would the little brat if she becomes a warrior. Same with cooking and cleaning up after themselves. One of the first things a soldier learns is to take care of, clean and iron his uniform. because there aren't any "dainty ladies" to do it for him.

I'm not against martial female characters, but I am against being exalted as "better" and "more feminist" than those characters who fill more traditional female roles or exhibit traditional feminine characteristics, but who are equally strong or stronger in character and mind.

I wouldn't call the differences between men and women "minimal". Some women can reach comparable levels of strength as average men if they train very hard, but I doubt they are very common. Also while fighting with weapons in itself might not require that much strength compared to other attributes like skill and speed, it is important to point out that a good 99% or so of the activities a soldier does isn't fighting. Especially of you talk about pre-modern eras like where Westeros and most fantasy stories are set in, most of what a soldier on campaign does is essentially just various kinds of heavy manual labor. Such as marching tens of kilometers per day while carrying 30+ kg of equipment, cutting down trees for defensive palisades and stakes, chopping firewood, digging trenches and tunnels (a common part of siege warfare since at least 2500 years ago), digging latrines, loading and unloading stuff from the supply carts, and so on. All this while often being chronically underfed, cold, wet and sleep deprived. Roman military manuals for example list that an ideal recruit should be tall, broad shouldered and had a past that involved heavy physical activity like being a farmer or butcher. 

I definitely agree with your second point though. There were also lots of women in many historical armies, they were just working in the supply train rather than as soldiers. Though they could definitely end up getting involved in the fighting anyway if the camp was attacked. 

[Woman of War]

I love my ruins as well, but I wonder why that very long time of Planetos history is needed at all.

Precise historical events  and lineages transported for eight thousand years, no technical, artistic and scientific development. They invented books, scriptures and libraries many thousand years ago but what is in them? Nothing but lore and lineages, no science, no philosophy, no art, no economics, no technology? 

I believe it is virtually impossible that a society on the level of a medieval feudal system stays that way longterm. There are too many  antagonistic interests, to many diverging forces to change that system which is so precariously dependent on weather. Starving workforce goes where they survive and they would overrun any feudal army trying to stop them in the long run. There will forcibly develop a more reliable economy to balance the unpredictable natural resources: a market economy as opposed economy based on exchange. Intercontinental trade to balance the irregular seasons. Food speculation would happen and this needs scientific methods of storage. A currency to create reliable markets, based on contracts and reliable business partners, a legal system coming with it -  and wham! You have capitalism. Houses and lineages are usurped not by swords and honor but by becoming obsolete and mere decoration.

There is actually a very short timespan in human history where Martin's books find a realistic background. A time where leading ideology was that rightful claims go back for centuries but we all know that was propaganda. So these long timespans of Martin's fictional history might turn out as exactly that: propaganda.

And I perfectly understand that writing about mystical magical Starks  and Lannisters and Targaeryens is more fascinating than about pragmatic Buddenbrooks, lol. Though the human heart is in conflict with itself everywhere and anytime, do you need Westerosi stasis of eight thousand years for it, to make it magically mysterious?

 

[Clegane'sPup]

7 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

I agree that, on average, men tend to have a higher body strength (while women tend to have a higher endurance) this however is so minimal that it can be overcome with training, a woman who does vigorous, psychical training every day of her life could easily beat an average guy to a pulp, I agree Brienne is a very realistic character, though I think Asha is less so (though as others have said, nothing unrealistic about her commanding an army) 

My problem with the way the stereotypical, breeches wearing, sword wielding rebellious princess "who's just as good as fighting as any man!!!11!!one!!2!", mostly the way less skilled writers use them, is that by itself I think this character is actually a misogynistic concept.

Brienne, for all of her childhood & adolescent difficulties & humiliations has been raised in a reasonably honorable & respected household. It is not until she strikes out her own that she experiences what Westeros thinks of a female trying to be a warrior.

Asha, has also had the protection of Balon but she is very aware of how the Ironborn view females. She commands her own ship.  I, speaking as a land lubber, have zero information on how to run a tight ship. She faces her uncles at the kingsmoot. She has courage, strength, tenacity and she gets swatted down, but does not give up.

The misogyny, if addressed by anyone should be made by the author. He wrote his books the way he wrote them. If 21st century women have a problem with Martin’s descriptions of women’s roles in his books I would suggest they take a few women’s history courses at the colleges & universities or accept Martin is misogynistic.

Is there a rational reason heavy weight  6’7” Vitali Klitschko  and feather weight 5’5” Manny Pacquiao would duke it out? My opinion is Manny might try to taunt Vitali with words but I’m thinking Vitali would laugh his ass off, shake his head & walk off. Civilized behavior.

I’ve never understood the line of reasoning of comparing the physical strength & endurance between males and females. I doubt very seriously that the actress who portrays Brienne would consider facing off with Vitali.

The actress who portrays Brienne is 6’3” and the actor who portrays the Hound is 6’6”. Both are well above average height for Caucasians.  Average white male is 5’10”. Average white female is 5’5”.

If Martin has the Hound & Brienne do a face of in WoW the Hound will win unless he slips in some mud or on some grass or stumbles over a root.  Sure Brienne will fight to the best of her physical ability but she will lose.

Brienne did a good job against the weakened Jaime (actor is 6’2”), he even admits her prowess, but as Martin pointed out more than once, physical strength & endurance is not enough when a female is faced with multiple attackers. Then again males can face the same challenge.

My point is even the most civilized human being will fight and scratch for life, but when faced with the scum of the earth, like the Mountain and the bloody mummers who actually enjoy their work it is a whole different set of circumstances. Uncivilized behavior.

War, death and survival are brutal. Actually being in the thick of things is very different than sitting in a comfortable chair watching images on a screen.

BTW I’m talking about hand to hand combat not corporate maneuvers or leadership skills.  People who watch the show mistakenly identify the actor’s physical appearance to the descriptions in Martin’s books. Tywin in the books was bald. He had a personal barber shave his head.

 

[BanzaiZ]

8 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

My problem with the way the stereotypical, breeches wearing, sword wielding rebellious princess "who's just as good as fighting as any man!!!11!!one!!2!", mostly the way less skilled writers use them, is that by itself I think this character is actually a misogynistic concept.

Think about it; it basically says, to be strong and worth anything, a woman has to strip herself of all femininity and adopt and aggressive, martial, stereotypically masculine persona. If you don't then you are a "worthless damsel in distress". This reeks of "man=good", "woman=useless" and more than anything betrays the underlying, deeply set misogyny that's still strong in our society.

This ignores the strength and achievements of real life historical women who mgith not have taken up a sword and bashed the enemy's head in, but who survived calamities, hardships and pain, thrived in society and in their chosen careers without shedding their femininity and relying on different strength. 

It is also a distressing aspect of a larger problem in our society that mistakes gentleness for weakness in both men and women. You need to damn strong to be gentle and stronger yet to remain gentle.

An example from these forums is Arya being celebrated for dismissing the "useless" "dainty" skill of needlework. Well check this out, smartypants; what does a knight or warrior out on a martial campaign have to do if his clothes rip? Does he run home to his dainty lady to have them mended? No, he has to do it himself. And so does Asha and so would the little brat if she becomes a warrior. Same with cooking and cleaning up after themselves. One of the first things a soldier learns is to take care of, clean and iron his uniform. because there aren't any "dainty ladies" to do it for him.

I'm not against martial female characters, but I am against being exalted as "better" and "more feminist" than those characters who fill more traditional female roles or exhibit traditional feminine characteristics, but who are equally strong or stronger in character and mind.

I agree with all of this. I even agree with that Asha scenario being on the unrealistic side, but I would hold that as unrealistic for a man or a woman in her situation. 

Martin gave a good example of women in the series who could fight like the men and be just as comfortable in a dress, when he gave us the Mormont women. I really wish we could see more of them, because they sound like a great answer to the "strong woman" stereotype. 

Other points of contention are:

• Nearly every bit of plot armor that Tyrion gets.
• Martin's economic system will give me a migraine if I try to think on it for too long, and it might be what drives me the most crazy of all the issues with the series. 
• Westeros' absolute refusal outside of small clusters to accept a growing merchant class, and then getting ahead of the trend. You see the Grafton's and the Hightower's do it to some extent, but even they aren't trying to set themselves up as the de facto head of an important guild... which while I'm talking about them, they don't seem to exist in Westeros either. 
• The size of Casterly Rock and the Wall make me cringe. Just breathing would be difficult for the people at the top of the structures, much less anything else. 
• The fact the maesters probably did have a hand in the deaths of the dragons, ostensibly so they could start moving past the magic-inducing stagnation (like we see the Free Cities have), and yet... nothing. Over a century to do anything, innovate anything, and nadda.
• The noble women not having their own court of ladies, or being the driving force behind patronage which would have helped with the innovation previously mentioned. 
• The fact that Eddard Stark didn't foster out any of his damned kids. What the ever-loving fuck? No wonder they're all dangerously and painfully naive! Arya alone would have benefited tremendously from being sent to Bear Island to foster with Maege and her daughters. That too-good-for-anything-ladies-like would have been corrected at least. Sansa could have at least been sent to White Harbor or even Riverrun and been exposed to the reality of courtly life, not the fairytales her septa and parents filled her head with. Nor did he have any betrothals set for the elder children. He went south, leaving Robb as the de facto lord of Winterfell, and didn't have any marriage in place for him? Are you shitting me? The Starks were so utterly stupid and irresponsible with the raising of their children, it's reprehensible.

[NutBurz]

I agree to a certain extent to every point made regarding how slow technological and economical progress is, because apparently they´ve been living like that for many thousands of years, which in our experience is enough to contain all our archeologically documented history.

But when you consider that a) Seasons are so irregular, and that civilizations possibly reach the brink of disappearance during long winters (I don´t know any material outside the series, like the book mentioned in the OP, so I don´t really know if this is even true, but it should be), b ) There have been cataclysmatic events like Valyria; and c) There are highly destructive creatures like dragons, it´s not hard to imagine that they´ve been "pulsing" inside the same level of knowledge between each semi-extinction event.

 

Maybe the story will see everyone dying and the White Walkers winning, like some say, then comes summer and they go back to the north and the planet is empty.

But maybe in a less extreme scenario, the fight consumes most of the living people and known characters, leaving only the most protected by plot armor - of those (say Jon, Arya, Sam, Dany, Sansa, Baelish, Tyrion), how many would be able to preserve and proceed with very advanced knowledge? How many maesters would survive a very very long winter? How many of the best blacksmiths? How many libraries must have been consumed by dragon fire in the history of Westeros.

And while all that also applies to the economy and capitalization of assets in terms of knowledge, in the "last pulse" that we observe in ASOIAF there´s the factor "Iron Bank". We might very well be watching the beginning of a capitalization of the world made by the Iron Bank, since everyone seems to owe them. But depending on what comes with winter, there might be nothing to pay them with, or even people to assume the debt.

I think it´s silly there´s only one big bank, but the thing is: killers like the Faceless Man are silly - if you accept them, the presence of this kind of manifestation of power and the effects it would have on dissuassion, you can very well accept they are the reason why there´s no "competition for credit".

[Thersites]

I suggest a reread of the offending Asha chapter. Take notice of the shield. Also, her opponents wear cheap leather armor which against a proper piercing weapon would offer the relative protection of a t-shirt. And she goes for the weak points. And she wears mail. And not only is she trained, it is reasonable to assume that being merely adequate is not enough to bear arms while not having external genitalia in westerosi society-you have to be exceptional at it (barring exceptions like the Bear Island women and the wildling spearwives). And she's taken a page from Brienne's master at arms' book, exploiting the fact that her opponents attack her recklessly because she's a woman.

Forgive my exaggerating, but imagine a fight between a man in good enough physical condition to work at a farm, but with no training to speak of, and a female olympic level fencer. A better equipped one. I trust I'm not the only one thinking the bloke will be gettiing 20 centimeters of sharpened steel through the eye in the first three seconds.

 A general discussion about how women fighters are depicted in fantasy is another thing (if she was cutting through steel like it was tissue paper and severing limbs with a flick of the wrist it would be a whole different matter). As are general views on gender. (Really tempted to describe in not very polite terms what I think of those views when they fall under "noxious misogyny", but I will restrain myself.) Concerning the topic at hand, however, nothing in the fight as discribed I have trouble taking seriously.
 

[Starfell]

11 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

My problem with the way the stereotypical, breeches wearing, sword wielding rebellious princess "who's just as good as fighting as any man!!!11!!one!!2!", mostly the way less skilled writers use them, is that by itself I think this character is actually a misogynistic concept.

Think about it; it basically says, to be strong and worth anything, a woman has to strip herself of all femininity and adopt and aggressive, martial, stereotypically masculine persona. If you don't then you are a "worthless damsel in distress". This reeks of "man=good", "woman=useless" and more than anything betrays the underlying, deeply set misogyny that's still strong in our society.

This ignores the strength and achievements of real life historical women who mgith not have taken up a sword and bashed the enemy's head in, but who survived calamities, hardships and pain, thrived in society and in their chosen careers without shedding their femininity and relying on different strength. 

It is also a distressing aspect of a larger problem in our society that mistakes gentleness for weakness in both men and women. You need to damn strong to be gentle and stronger yet to remain gentle.

 

I think that we risk overlooking the value of context in this discussion when it comes to the more "tomboyish" chracters. If Martin was presenting the only "strong" women in the series as those who defy femininity then yes, it would be misogynisic. But that's not the case, we have plenty of examples of women wielding soft power to good effect, Cat, Genna Lannister, Olenna Tyrell, Barbray Dustin, Anya Waynwood, Melisandre, even Cersei when she's on form. In fact, Sansa's entire arc is about that. I mean, the Tyrells commit regicide with a hairnet, of all things, which is a great metaphor for where the power lies in their House despite their huge armies and the martial prowess of their sons. 

In that context, characters like Brienne, Asha and Arya are just exploring a different path which is no more or less valid. I won't speak about fandom reaction to characters though, which obviously does place judgements on thier vrious skillsets, and those judgements will naturally reflect any prejudices held by the person writing the post.

One last point is that I think GRRM is being quite deliberate in his use of gender, physical description, and a host of other factors with regards to power when it comes to manipulating the "gentle=weak" trope, and proving that it's nonsense. Apart from some of the ladies mentioned above, there are people like Varys and Illyrio (whose soft exteriors belie their murderous pragmatism), or characters like Sam, or Luwin (whose gentle nature is part of their strength).

[Orphalesion]

On 15/05/2016 at 1:58 AM, Starfell said:

I think that we risk overlooking the value of context in this discussion when it comes to the more "tomboyish" chracters. If Martin was presenting the only "strong" women in the series as those who defy femininity then yes, it would be misogynisic. But that's not the case, we have plenty of examples of women wielding soft power to good effect, Cat, Genna Lannister, Olenna Tyrell, Barbray Dustin, Anya Waynwood, Melisandre, even Cersei when she's on form. In fact, Sansa's entire arc is about that. I mean, the Tyrells commit regicide with a hairnet, of all things, which is a great metaphor for where the power lies in their House despite their huge armies and the martial prowess of their sons. 

In that context, characters like Brienne, Asha and Arya are just exploring a different path which is no more or less valid. I won't speak about fandom reaction to characters though, which obviously does place judgements on thier vrious skillsets, and those judgements will naturally reflect any prejudices held by the person writing the post.

One last point is that I think GRRM is being quite deliberate in his use of gender, physical description, and a host of other factors with regards to power when it comes to manipulating the "gentle=weak" trope, and proving that it's nonsense. Apart from some of the ladies mentioned above, there are people like Varys and Illyrio (whose soft exteriors belie their murderous pragmatism), or characters like Sam, or Luwin (whose gentle nature is part of their strength).

 

Yes I am completely in agreement with you, Which is why I wrote that the breeches-clad rebellious princess with a sword is a misogynistic cocnept the way lesser skilled writers (i.e. Not Martin) use it. Martin knows how to write a large array of male and female characters, strong, week, cruel, kind, gentle, brutal, intelligent, dumb and everything in between. 

My rant was against the fandumb not against the (in this case excellent) work of the author.

[Jasta11]

Another thing that came to my attention is how callous everyone seems to be regarding the year(s) long winters. Winter is no joke. It means no food grown for all its duration, weather that can raise hell on infrastucture, and economic activity being slowed down on land (and if the seas stay as stormy as they are shown, that part is hampered as well). A few month's winter can be bad enough. Years? Holy moly, do you need to prepare for that way ahead of schedule if you don't want most of your population to starve. Especially with large warehouses choke full of preserved food for the literal millions who are now just barely able, or downright incapable of growing what they need to survive. Greenhouses such as the one in Winterfell would also be extremely popular.

And yet, everyone runs around raiding and pillaging farms with seemingly no regards for the long-term consequences. Normal wars can easily breed famines; imagine a famine breaking out right before a year-long winter. The nobles will survive, but most everyone else will flee to greener pastures or starve. No one seems especially worried about preparing for winter save for a few token mentions in Jon's ADWD chapters.

I really don't think a feudal economic system would survive for thousands of years, virtually unchanged, in those conditions. People would leave or forcibly change the system to one that gave them a chance in hell to survive a year or more with no new food sources. Peasants were not as passive as Martin (seemingly) portrays them to be. 

[DarkSister1001]

Dany getting dreamy-eyed about Daario's golden tooth.  No thanks. 

[NutBurz]

2 hours ago, Jasta11 said:

Another thing that came to my attention is how callous everyone seems to be regarding the year(s) long winters. Winter is no joke. It means no food grown for all its duration, weather that can raise hell on infrastucture, and economic activity being slowed down on land (and if the seas stay as stormy as they are shown, that part is hampered as well). A few month's winter can be bad enough. Years? Holy moly, do you need to prepare for that way ahead of schedule if you don't want most of your population to starve. Especially with large warehouses choke full of preserved food for the literal millions who are now just barely able, or downright incapable of growing what they need to survive. Greenhouses such as the one in Winterfell would also be extremely popular.

And yet, everyone runs around raiding and pillaging farms with seemingly no regards for the long-term consequences. Normal wars can easily breed famines; imagine a famine breaking out right before a year-long winter. The nobles will survive, but most everyone else will flee to greener pastures or starve. No one seems especially worried about preparing for winter save for a few token mentions in Jon's ADWD chapters.

I really don't think a feudal economic system would survive for thousands of years, virtually unchanged, in those conditions. People would leave or forcibly change the system to one that gave them a chance in hell to survive a year or more with no new food sources. Peasants were not as passive as Martin (seemingly) portrays them to be. 

Agreed, mostly. Among the knowledge people would be most eager to preserve through winters would certainly be how to store food properly, everywhere people would try to keep greenhouses and have huge, high and dry places for the storage of grains.

Regarding the italic part, I think GRRM tries to show us the side of effect of long summers - people get complacent and let greed influence them into bad long-term decisions. It highlights the importance of the main house in the north constantly reminding them that winter is always coming, and the danger of such house being weak right as winter is upon them.

And I agree again, except I´m pretty sure ~90% of peasants die during particularly long winters. That´s the only way to explain the prevalence of the same dozen houses throughout thousands of years.

[Jasta11]

24 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

Agreed, mostly. Among the knowledge people would be most eager to preserve through winters would certainly be how to store food properly, everywhere people would try to keep greenhouses and have huge, high and dry places for the storage of grains.

Regarding the italic part, I think GRRM tries to show us the side of effect of long summers - people get complacent and let greed influence them into bad long-term decisions. It highlights the importance of the main house in the north constantly reminding them that winter is always coming, and the danger of such house being weak right as winter is upon them.

And I agree again, except I´m pretty sure ~90% of peasants die during particularly long winters. That´s the only way to explain the prevalence of the same dozen houses throughout thousands of years.

 

90% of the population (since peasants basically are the population, or at least 98% of it) dying during a winter is pretty nuts, though. There's no way Westeros could function if it suffered through such a massive depopulation bomb. It wouldn't just stagnate technologically; nothing would ever get done and everyone would be in pure survival mode.

I mean, the nobles aren't going to cry over some of their subjects dying, but their realm just cannot function if everyone starts dropping left and right every few years. They'd be ruling a graveyard. Which might be okay with the likes of Roose Bolton, I suppose, but not the rest.

[The Arthur Smith]

3 hours ago, DarkSister1001 said:

Dany getting dreamy-eyed about Daario's golden tooth.  No thanks. 

Don't forget the blue hair.

On 5/15/2016 at 7:20 AM, Orphalesion said:

My problem with the way the stereotypical, breeches wearing, sword wielding rebellious princess "who's just as good as fighting as any man!!!11!!one!!2!", mostly the way less skilled writers use them, is that by itself I think this character is actually a misogynistic concept.

Think about it; it basically says, to be strong and worth anything, a woman has to strip herself of all femininity and adopt and aggressive, martial, stereotypically masculine persona. If you don't then you are a "worthless damsel in distress". This reeks of "man=good", "woman=useless" and more than anything betrays the underlying, deeply set misogyny that's still strong in our society.

This ignores the strength and achievements of real life historical women who mgith not have taken up a sword and bashed the enemy's head in, but who survived calamities, hardships and pain, thrived in society and in their chosen careers without shedding their femininity and relying on different strength. 

It is also a distressing aspect of a larger problem in our society that mistakes gentleness for weakness in both men and women. You need to damn strong to be gentle and stronger yet to remain gentle.

An example from these forums is Arya being celebrated for dismissing the "useless" "dainty" skill of needlework. Well check this out, smartypants; what does a knight or warrior out on a martial campaign have to do if his clothes rip? Does he run home to his dainty lady to have them mended? No, he has to do it himself. And so does Asha and so would the little brat if she becomes a warrior. Same with cooking and cleaning up after themselves. One of the first things a soldier learns is to take care of, clean and iron his uniform. because there aren't any "dainty ladies" to do it for him.

I'm not against martial female characters, but I am against being exalted as "better" and "more feminist" than those characters who fill more traditional female roles or exhibit traditional feminine characteristics, but who are equally strong or stronger in character and mind.

I agreed with this idea that the whole masculinity is better is intoxicating, especially women being tomboy or a warrior is what considered to be ideal in our standard. But in the context of GRMM's writing and story, i think that's the point.

Few women in the series who despite rebelled against the social norms that dictated them, actually tend to hold a double standard toward other women and their gender. Someone made a good analyze on Asha for example. She's a princess warrior who's determine to become a queen despite the patriarchal society of the Ironborn, yet Asha doesn't acknowledge other women aside from her mother. http://asoiafuniversity.tumblr.com/post/108068665885/the-significance-of-hagens-beautiful-red-haired. Another example is Cersei, who of course is very misogynistic in spite that of being a victim of the patriarchal norms. Her misogynistic belief and action against another women is all justify in order to make herself confident and powerful as she wish to be born of a man instead of a woman.

In real life, the whole case may be a thing back then with women have to be man if they want to fit in their role and reject their femininity. Like Joan of Arc, there was an instance where she told a woman to stay in the kitchen, despite herself was a woman who managed to become the commander of the army. Another example is the Greek Goddess Athena. Contrast to popular belief, Athena isn't a feminist icon in spite of being a woman warrior as she often sided with men and rarely interact with women and when she does, it's brutal (particularly Medusa and Arachne). Athena not having a maternal figure in her life is another purpose and you know how Ancient Greek loves to used these myths to justify their action against women. After all, Athena is the patron of the famous city Athen, and Athenians were notorious for being a patriarchal society (by our standard at least when studying Ancient history).

I wonder if GRMM's writing on rebellious women was influenced by this considering his knowledge on medieval era/

[Hol Horse]

Vargo Hoat and his league of supervillians.