Jump to content
Lady Winter Rose

Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Arya saw Joffrey for the little shit he was, while Daenerys wouldn’t see anything good about Ned Stark if it was dancing in front of her.

AGOT Dany was extremely observant. Post-dragon, though, that declined. The HOTU chapter felt like AGOT Dany, but then she disappeared again. At present, I think there’s a theme going on of when you have a gun dragons, all of your problems look like targets dragon food mentality as dragons have been equated to WMDs and it’s maybe fallen a little flat. But I don't really know :dunno:

I think AGOT Dany would have seen Ned Stark for what he was. Now that she's channeling her inner Viserys, we'll have to see, but my guess is probably not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A lot of people are in for a disappointment because these two girls are in the stories until the very end.  The author's letter to his editor, which was leaked a few  years ago, made clear that five main characters will survive throughout the story:  Daenerys, Arya, Bran, Jon, and Tyrion.   Hating one of the two top characters is going to keep you from enjoying the rest of the story.  

Just saying.

Edited by Rosetta Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Wait, "wench" is depreciating? In this case I apologize, I really didn't know…  (I tried two online translators that say otherwise)

It's a tough word. Technically means "young girl" so you're ok, but its usage is different in the US. It generally implies being low class and/or prostitution. Serving wench is used, but not in a modern restaurant, only in 1700s or so atmosphere and when a someone is wearing Oktoberfest costumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rosetta Stone said:

A lot of people are in for a disappointment because these two are in the stories until the very end.  The author's letter to his editor, which was leaked a few  years ago, made clear that five main characters will survive throughout the story:  Daenerys, Arya, Bran, Jon, and Tyrion.  

Just saying.

Sadly, the author isn't terribly reliable, so maybe that outline still holds, and maybe not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rosetta Stone said:

A lot of people are in for a disappointment because these two are in the stories until the very end.  The author's letter to his editor, which was leaked a few  years ago, made clear that five main characters will survive throughout the story:  Daenerys, Arya, Bran, Jon, and Tyrion.  

Just saying.

The outline doesn't mean much to many on the forum. But yeah, Jon (and others) aren't likely to die anytime soon.

http://time.com/3994289/george-rr-martin-game-of-thrones-song-of-fire-and-ice-ending/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

AGOT Dany was extremely observant. Post-dragon, though, that declined. The HOTU chapter felt like AGOT Dany, but then she disappeared again. At present, I think there’s a theme going on of when you have a gun dragons, all of your problems look like targets dragon food mentality as dragons have been equated to WMDs and it’s maybe fallen a little flat. But I don't really know :dunno:

 

I think AGOT Dany would have seen Ned Stark for what he was. Now that she's channeling her inner Viserys, we'll have to see, but my guess is probably not. 

If she's channeling her inner Viserys, she'll be crowned... one way or another.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

I like Dany.  A lot.  Dany is the best character created by GRRM.  I have read just about all of his short stories and Khaleesi is definitely his best character.  I would not be reading aSoIaF if I didn't like the main protagonists.  

I don't like the Starks.  Well, Bran and Rickon are ok up to this point, but Arya, Jon, Robb, and Sansa turn me off.  All of them are dingbats and bungholes.

So are Stannis and Tywin.  Bungholes.  According to Lord Walder.  Gotta love the old man for his humor.  

Arya is Lady Stoneheart's mini me.  I don't see the need to have her in the story.  Maybe I just don't enjoy Arya.

I do like Dany and find her story compelling.  Her story is compelling enough to win awards for George.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damsel in Distress said:

Arya is not attractive.  She does not possess charm and elegance.  I suppose that appeals to some of the fans out there.  I do not find Arya interesting.

Nonsense. She's often described as looking more and more like Lyanna Stark, who had a "wild beauty" that, with her bravery, captured Prince Rhaegar's heart. Sansa is conventionally beautiful, old Disney-princess charming.** Cat thinks Sansa is more attractive than herself at that age, but that's a mother's thinking and a Tully's thinking, in my opinion. Catelyn was unimpressed by Eddard Stark, too, at the beginning, and never met Lyanna, as far as we know.

2 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

So you're basically a troll.

I'd brand it an opposing opinion. That's still allowed, right?   ;-)

-------------

** I realize that Disney princesses have come a long way from Snow White!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Arya is Lady Stoneheart's mini me.  I don't see the need to have her in the story.  Maybe I just don't enjoy Arya.

Compare and contrast. Is this going to be Arya's path, too? How will it end, for Arya and for Poor Dead Cat? Catelyn seems to have seriously messed up the Brotherhood w/o Banners, yet the fact is that they were leaning towards poorly justified vigilante violence even before they exchanged Lord Beric for Lady Cat. It appears the Hound may have been the last one, and only successful man, to stand up to them and shame them.

Arya has come to understand that Nymeria lives, and is still a part of her. Arya thus doesn't even need to return to Westeros to exact her revenge on Her LIst! Question - will Nymeria/Arya meet Dead Lady Catelyn again? Will they recognize one another? And then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, zandru said:

Compare and contrast. Is this going to be Arya's path, too? How will it end, for Arya and for Poor Dead Cat? Catelyn seems to have seriously messed up the Brotherhood w/o Banners, yet the fact is that they were leaning towards poorly justified vigilante violence even before they exchanged Lord Beric for Lady Cat. It appears the Hound may have been the last one, and only successful man, to stand up to them and shame them.

Arya has come to understand that Nymeria lives, and is still a part of her. Arya thus doesn't even need to return to Westeros to exact her revenge on Her LIst! Question - will Nymeria/Arya meet Dead Lady Catelyn again? Will they recognize one another? And then what?

Are you asking me?  Your question are numerous but I shall try to address each of them.  

  1. Arya has an advantage on her mom.  She's still alive and capable of choosing.  Sandor's effect on Arya has yet to be determined but he is a jaded fellow and it's not going to be positive.  He stood up to the brotherhood and he stood up to Arya, but what it does in the final analysis? Both believe they are delivering justice but I have issues over the killing of Merrett and the assassination of the Insurance Underwriter.
  2. Nymeria has gone savage.  Maybe it is Arya's madness bleeding over through their bond.  Nymeria will be of no help in reforming Arya.  She will only make Arya more primal.  
  3. My opinion, Arya will be put on the right path only if she meets someone with an important cause.  Jorah the slaver is redeemed when he helped Dany rescue 8000 unsullied from Kraznys.  Jorah sold a few but rescued thousands [helped rescue thousands].  Is that redemption?  I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

So you're basically a troll.

I come across many of your posts and I cannot help but think how immature you must be.  Grow up and accept that others have a different opinion of these characters than you.  You may not respect an opinion but at least show a modicum of manners to the member who posted.  There are many people who use these forums and while many will share your opinions, there will be an equal number of others who will not.  Throwing insults like that tells me more about you than your opinion.  

 

Edited by Here's Looking At You, Kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people tend to view Dany as an adult sometimes and so judge her more harshly for her actions, whereas everyone still sees Arya as a child. In my case I tend to do this because I started with the show lol.


Also the family association of both characters have an impact. Arya is being led away from the honourable Stark upbringing while Dany is succumbing to her inevitable Targaryen madness. I can certainly see why readers would think this way.

Personally neither characters are my favourites, though I find Arya less dull to read than Dany. Viewing them as people (especially children) in extreme circumstances, I am hoping Arya doesn't completely lose herself, while Dany acts of violence turn out to be no more than the decisions of a confused, young leader, and like any other leader in the story she will probably keep making these mistakes when she is older.

Though as character of course I think it would be interesting to see how the story would unfold if Dany were to go mad, and if Arya continues down her path. Though Dany leaving Meereen would be enough for me lol.

But yeah, I think most readers when questioned further would be hard pressed to say that they truly hate characters like Arya or Dany. It's just that like most of the other characters, their actions and choices can be debated over. Given their circumstances even children in aSoiaF are not exempt from being grey characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yep, I think I was mistaken. I think I may have been conflating a few different scenarios together. Tyrion's musings about how easy it is to become accustomed to the chains, the Pit Fighters wanting to fight for themselves, and the fact that people wanted to sell themselves into slavery. I'd thought that there were freedmen trying to sell themselves into slavery, on page, but it does seem I'm wrong about that. My bad.

That said, I don't think it necessarily undermines my argument. The fact remains that people still wanted to sell themselves into slavery. Of course, maybe they thought that they'd get better treatment than the other slaves, but that seems a foolish hope. A slave is a slave, and of course while the owner decides the treatment, the fact remains that any slave, no matter how well born, has at least the potential to be treated as cruelly as any other.

There would also, surely, have been former slaves who knew how to read and write, and those were the types of people Daario was describing (he says that they'll be, among other things, scribes and tutors), though he also describes them as gently born (though how would he know, for certain?). Also, after Daenerys concedes that any man or woman is allowed to sell themselves into slavery, it doesn't need to come up again (no freedman would come to Daenerys asking to sell themselves, they could just do so), so we cannot say for certain that no freedman sold themselves back into slavery, though of course we cannot say the opposite, that they did.

That ex-slaves sold themselves is a common misconception that most people have, me included at one time. I mean, it's not impossible, especially outside of Meereen where living conditions really disintegrated, but we just can't say for sure because there's no actual example of it in the text. And I don't think Daario was lying when he said the people begging to be sold were "gently born". He doesn't have anything to lose or gain by convincing Dany to allow slave trade to continue outside Meereen (and the text doesn't hint at anything).

Just looking at the nobles though, Daario describes them as potentially being "prized slaves", and this is likely what they thought as well, differentiating themselves from the Unsullied or the children who were crucified. They'd be owned by the richest slavers and living close to how they were before. I can believe they'd see that as an attractive option after the shock of suddenly having their power stripped and their income slashed. Like Tyrion, they wouldn't think being owned, regardless of how well they were treated, could be that bad, having never experienced such a thing.

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The impression I got was that all of the nobility were the Great Masters; that it was just their fancy, self-aggrandizing way of saying noble. Which is to say, Reznak and Skahaz, for example, were former Great Masters, along with everyone who lived, freely, in the pyramids, and many more besides. Though I've been looking, and I cannot really say for certain that this is so, but it was my impression.

I'm not 100% on how it all works tbh, because we get some contradicting descriptions of the Great Masters. For example, we get "The Great Masters, what a ripe lot o’ maggots. The women weren’t so bad..." and "The Great Masters had looked anything but great in the morning light [...] a herd of old men with shriveled balls and spotted skin and young men with ridiculous hair. Their women were either soft and fleshy or as dry as old sticks..." but then they're "old men with withered cocks and crones whose puckered cunts were dry as dust". Dany uses "Great Masters" to refer to the leaders of her enemies (like "The Great Masters of Meereen had withdrawn before Dany’s advance"), which is why I get the impression that not every noble is a Great Master, but sometimes the usage could be referring to whole families. I'm not sure what to make of it.

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Sure, but if he supported their actions (once again, this is assuming he's genuine) he wouldn't want them to stop. Perhaps it's not a direct condemnation, but it certainly implies disapproval. If Hizdahr thinks he needs to stop the Harpy's Sons in order to protect his own people, it obviously follows that he thinks that they're endangering his own people, which he thinks is bad. That's certainly not approval of their actions.

Hizdahr convincing the Sons is a neutral act that neither supports nor condemns them. He openly states his reasons for doing so is (a) because he wants to protect his own (from Dany) and (b) to become Dany's consort.

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Oh. Right. I only ever really argue anything from an in-story perspective. There is a story, after all, and it needs to be cohesive. If there's no plausible reason for something to happen in-story, I feel that it shouldn't be in the story.

From an out of universe perspective, however, it may simply be that GRRM felt that Daenerys would be swayed by their pleading, their reasonable arguments that they're innocent, and that he wanted Daenerys to crucify them. We all know how much trouble GRRM had with writing Meereen, and without this scene, a lot of what happens wouldn't make much sense. Much of the reason that Daenerys's diplomacy fails in Meereen is that her first act was that of a tyrant. She immediately, permanently, turned a great deal of the noble class against her by her rash action. It needed to happen, and it's possible that she'd have been swayed if she'd listened.

That makes a certain amount of sense in-story, too. She had wanted to feel like an "avenging dragon" (the way she phrases it), and she didn't want to be swayed away from what she felt was "just", so she didn't choose to listen. She feels a bit bad, afterwards (though she quickly puts the thought out of her mind), when she hears and smells them dying, which lends credence to the idea that she thinks she could've been swayed.

I don't really think it would've fit, honestly. Trying to force things just so that they're there, despite perhaps not really fitting is the way you get "creatively it made sense to us, because we wanted it to happen." Sometimes, if it doesn't fit, or you can't make it fit, it's fine to drop it.

Don't get me wrong, GRRM is a fantastic author, and I'm certain that, if he really wanted it, he could've somehow worked it in, and it would've been good. But considering the trouble he had writing a lot of the Meereenese stuff, and the fact that it doesn't need to be said outright (well, I don't think it does, at least), it didn't need to be put in.

Also, side note, GRRM had intended for some of the Winds chapters to be in Dance, no? Perhaps what you're looking for would've been in one of those chapters. The formerly Great Masters appealing not to Daenerys, but to Barristan. There, I think it could fit.

I'll counter that with the fact that there's no textual evidence that all of the Great Masters came together and plotted to crucify those children, as far as I can see.

Here you say GRRM might worry Dany would be swayed by their pleading, but you previously claimed you were quite certain that a proclamation of innocence would fall only on deaf ears.

I'm no writer, but it doesn't seem it would be difficult to slot in a quick "but my husband did not do this thing". He found the time to write in that one of the old women was sobbing, after all. There was also ample opportunity to write in doubt in later scenes. She had plenty of people criticizing her, trying to convince her she wasn't improving any lives, like Xaro. Why couldn't one of them use the "innocent" slavers to argue that she was not doing any good in Meereen? I find none of these ideas implausible.

Maybe he plans to drop it in, in the next book (unlikely, because the arc of Dany doubting her "dragon" side concluded in her last chapter), but unless we see that, your headcanon that Dany crucified men who did not want to nail up children remains headcanon, and not something that can be inferred from what GRRM had written.

As for evidence for GM all agreeing to the crucifixions, it is implied in the text when Dany thinks "The Great Masters of Meereen [...] had nailed a slave child up on every milepost along the coast road from Yunkai" and there is nothing to contradict her narration. Also, if some of them had objected to the act, what was stopping them from vetoing the idea? They were the decision makers of the place. The fact that the deed was done implies they all consented to and agreed to perform the act, regardless of their personal feelings about it. They didn't need to have physically pinned a child to a post (something they likely got other slaves to do, anyway) to have been guilty. Hence, there was no need for a trial.

15 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I disagree. I feel the whole "bias" argument really falls flat. Our early interactions with people, primarily parents and teachers, go a long way to shape a person, but saying that people are biased by everything they hear completely undermines the idea that anyone can think critically.

[snip'd for length]

I didn't say people are biased by everything they hear. I said that no one is immune to being sexist and everyone has biases which are unconsciously picked up through the environment in which we are exposed to. I don't have to be a mind reader or conceited to think this because there are hundreds of studies about this phenomenon. Also, it just makes logical sense. We aren't born with fully formed opinions, and the opinions we do have can change with new experiences. Is it so farfetched then, that our attitudes and opinions can be tainted by the sexism that we've grown up with?

Yes, there is critical thought, but it's impossible to be thinking critically 100% of the time, and there are times where you don't even know you're being sexist (particularly if you're going around thinking you just CAN'T be sexist because you're such a great guy). I mentioned that I often catch myself being sexist, not because I think everyone thinks just like me, as you rudely assert, but because I wanted to show that despite awareness of your own biases and limitations, it can still creep up on you, because we've all had a lifetime of conditioning. But there are also biases we hold that are impossible to pick up one. I don't want to get into it too much here, so I'll just link this article explaining it: http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/. It's these types of unconscious biases that seep into our reading and interpretation of female (and male) characters.

TL;DR so do I think everyone is sexist? No, to call everyone sexist is to make the term meaningless. But I do think no one is immune to being sexist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

I come across many of your posts and I cannot help but think how immature you must be. 

Someone comes in this thread and declares "The OP wants to bash Dany, then we Dany lovers are going to bash Arya", and it's me who's immature?

Some posters here intervene only to spit their irrational hatred of certain characters (generally Starks) without bringing anything to the discussion. To be compared with some other posters who have a fantastic knowledge of the books, make comments that are always interesting and about whom I'm not able to tell if they have a favorite character…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 5:18 PM, Lady Winter Rose said:

Just because one is feminine smart ruler, and another is adventurous tomboy assassin, doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading both of them. But to be honest, Dany is more realistic than Arya. There are RL princesses, no matter how much some readers hated idea of princesses in the novel, while Arya is stereotypical rogue of any fantasy novel/game.

Neither are that realistic.  Both of these ladies are too advanced for their years. 

Daenerys Targaryen

I'm in love with Dany.  She is the only one whom you can say truly has greatness.  I will advice you to check out a discussion topic from last month called Daenerys Targaryen's Power Plays..  It is an enlightenment.  

Arya Stark

I am not fond of Arya.  She is popular among the Stark fandom because she is the personification of vengeance.  I am not a member of that fandom and do not find Arya an interesting read.  Arya's travels through the middle of Westeros and onto the House of Black & White is tedious for me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Radish Knight said:

 

I think people tend to view Dany as an adult sometimes and so judge her more harshly for her actions, whereas everyone still sees Arya as a child. In my case I tend to do this because I started with the show lol.

 

Good observation, one actress was in her late twenties at the start whilst the other one was not only in her teens but also has a childish look and a small frame.

But apart from that it holds true in universe too, Robb and Jon consider themselves to be a man grown in 15, same age as Dany is right now where as Arya still hasn't even had her "flowering".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And I don't think Daario was lying when he said the people begging to be sold were "gently born". He doesn't have anything to lose or gain by convincing Dany to allow slave trade to continue outside Meereen (and the text doesn't hint at anything).

Oh, I don't think Daario would've lied about it (as you say, why would he?), just that he might have been incorrect, or only seen a select number of them, or that it was the well born among them who was asking (if these disheveled Meereenese had banded together, the well born would be their leaders and spokespeople).

You're right though, there's no mention of it. I really did think that it was explicitly stated, though. It's bizarre.

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Just looking at the nobles though, Daario describes them as potentially being "prized slaves", and this is likely what they thought as well, differentiating themselves from the Unsullied or the children who were crucified. They'd be owned by the richest slavers and living close to how they were before. I can believe they'd see that as an attractive option after the shock of suddenly having their power stripped and their income slashed. Like Tyrion, they wouldn't think being owned, regardless of how well they were treated, could be that bad, having never experienced such a thing.

Yeah, fair enough. I can easily see some people thinking "Oh, they'd never dare do x to me", despite the fact that they have seen or have heard of atrocities committed against slaves, or even committed such atrocities themselves.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'm not 100% on how it all works tbh... 

I'm not sure what to make of it.

It's really odd, I'll say that. One point in favour of the Great Masters being the name for the nobility is that Daenerys found 163 of them to crucify. Take King's Landing, you'd never find 163 leaders laying about. You've got the King, the Small Council, perhaps you could count the commander of the Gold Cloaks (military leader, if not high nobility). I doubt you'd have too much trouble finding 163 nobles about the city, though.

It doesn't really matter, I suppose, but it's a lot easier to believe that the Small Council might've each had some part in some conspiracy that it is to believe that all of the nobility in the city had some part in it.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Hizdahr convincing the Sons is a neutral act that neither supports nor condemns them. He openly states his reasons for doing so is (a) because he wants to protect his own (from Dany) and (b) to become Dany's consort.

Well, fair enough. If he's genuine, he's likely made enemies of the Sons, but it's true enough that he hasn't taken some moral stance against what they're doing, just that his machinations are more important to him.

Although, Reznak and Skahaz are former Great Masters, and they're definitely opposed to the actions of the Harpy's Sons (well, if they're genuine, and their words can be believed). Of course, considering they've aligned themselves with Daenerys's rule, they'd be bound to take her side, on this.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Here you say GRRM might worry Dany would be swayed by their pleading, but you previously claimed you were quite certain that a proclamation of innocence would fall only on deaf ears.

I don't think that's contradictory. She could be swayed, so she specifically didn't listen (no trial). Deaf ears because she wouldn't listen, not because she couldn't be swayed if she did. And when I say "wouldn't listen", I don't mean just ignoring the words, I mean that she wouldn't allow the words to be said in her presence.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'm no writer, but it doesn't seem it would be difficult to slot in a quick "but my husband did not do this thing". He found the time to write in that one of the old women was sobbing, after all. There was also ample opportunity to write in doubt in later scenes. She had plenty of people criticizing her, trying to convince her she wasn't improving any lives, like Xaro. Why couldn't one of them use the "innocent" slavers to argue that she was not doing any good in Meereen? I find none of these ideas implausible.

Perhaps they could have tried to convince her she crucified a bunch of innocent people. But do they even care to make her see it? Whether she thinks she was wrong to crucify those people or not, the vast majority of the Meereenese want her dead or gone, and she's not just leaving. They don't want to convince her that she was wrong, and that she should make amends, and that they can work for a better future, or anything like that. They just want her out.

Not to mention, if Reznak and Skahaz are former Great Masters (I think they are, at least. I do wish it was clearer if the Great Masters were just some top tier group among the nobility, or if they're just all of the nobility) it seems she doesn't hold them responsible for the crucifixion of the children. So, she must know that not all of the Great Masters were responsible, even if she somehow thinks that the 163 she had crucified were responsible, by some freak chance.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Maybe he plans to drop it in, in the next book (unlikely, because the arc of Dany doubting her "dragon" side concluded in her last chapter), but unless we see that, your headcanon that Dany crucified men who did not want to nail up children remains headcanon, and not something that can be inferred from what GRRM had written.

Well, it is what I inferred from what GRRM had written, so it obviously can be. Your assertion that all of the Great Masters were complicit is also not explicitly stated.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

As for evidence for GM all agreeing to the crucifixions, it is implied in the text when Dany thinks "The Great Masters of Meereen [...] had nailed a slave child up on every milepost along the coast road from Yunkai" and there is nothing to contradict her narration.

Yeah, that's Daenerys's thoughts as she's advancing on Meereen. What, exactly, makes you think she has some knowledge of what the Meereenese are planning, despite being days out from the city? There's nothing to support her narration. She's just using a generalisation. For instance, Catelyn could have thought something along the lines of "the Westermen had done blah blah blah" while referring to the actions of some of Tywin's forces, but that doesn't mean that literally all of the people from the Westerlands had some part in it.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Also, if some of them had objected to the act, what was stopping them from vetoing the idea?

What's to stop Tyrek Lannister from vetoing an idea made by Littlefinger? Even if they are all Great Masters, that doesn't necessarily mean they're on equal ground.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

They were the decision makers of the place. The fact that the deed was done implies they all consented to and agreed to perform the act, regardless of their personal feelings about it.

I disagree. As you say, at least some of them are the decision makers. Powerful people. Theoretically, the slaves all belonged to one person, who could easily have had the children crucified without mentioning it to any of the other Great Masters. I'm sure they have some sort of democracy, some say in what happens, but for the most part they're probably quite independent. It's not like Varys runs all of his plans by Littlefinger, is it? Same thing here.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

They didn't need to have physically pinned a child to a post (something they likely got other slaves to do, anyway) to have been guilty.

Of course, I don't think any of the slavers would've dirtied their own hands. Why would they? Even if not other slaves, they'd have used their soldiers.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Hence, there was no need for a trial.

The only reason there was "no need" for a trial is that there was no evidence that any of them were actually guilty of this crime (any individual, of course. Someone had those children crucified), and Daenerys wanted vengeance, regardless of whether or not the actual guilty party was punished.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I didn't say people are biased by everything they hear.

I was being hyperbolic. But I stand by the fact that very few things one hears could bias someone, so long as they actually thought about it.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I said that no one is immune to being sexist and everyone has biases which are unconsciously picked up through the environment in which we are exposed to.

Right, but how? I understand if you're very young, you're more impressionable, but once you're a grown person, you don't just believe things. You think it through. So no matter what the environment may be telling you, you're probably not just going to automatically believe it. And if you consciously don't believe it, I don't see how it could worm it's way into your subconscious.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I don't have to be a mind reader or conceited to think this because there are hundreds of studies about this phenomenon.

As long as there have been studies about it, there have been those who opposed it. Educated people, of course. The link between unconscious bias and biased behaviour (which is to say, whether or not an unconscious bias actually has any effect) has long been a topic of debate.

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Also, it just makes logical sense. We aren't born with fully formed opinions, and the opinions we do have can change with new experiences. Is it so farfetched then, that our attitudes and opinions can be tainted by the sexism that we've grown up with?

Opinions formed by what we grew up with? Absolutely. But once you actually think about those opinions, you might find yourself disagreeing with what you once thought. You said it yourself, opinions change with new experiences. Why then, do these unconscious biases remain with people for their entire life, as you assert? Many people might well have been a sexist little shit when they were a child, but once they get a bit older, a lot of people will realise that they were awful, and won't be that way.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yes, there is critical thought, but it's impossible to be thinking critically 100% of the time, and there are times where you don't even know you're being sexist 

You don't need to be thinking critically 100% of the time, though. If you thought about why you don't like Daenerys, and you came back with "because she's a woman", either you're an unrepentant sexist, or you're going to change your mind. It's as simple as that. If you came back with a different answer as to why you don't like Daenerys, you're either not a sexist (at least, not in this situation), or you didn't actually think critically, but I stand by my assertion that the vast majority of the people of this forum fall into the "not a sexist" category. Or, at the least, the vast majority of this forum has actually bothered to critically think about why they like or dislike particular characters, even if they are unconsciously biased. Which was, of course, my original point.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

(particularly if you're going around thinking you just CAN'T be sexist because you're such a great guy).

I'm not sure if this is really directed at me, or is just a generalisation, but I've never claimed to be a great guy. Or even that I can't be sexist. But I do know that the reason I hate Daenerys isn't because she's a woman.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I mentioned that I often catch myself being sexist, not because I think everyone thinks just like me, as you rudely assert, but because I wanted to show that despite awareness of your own biases and limitations, it can still creep up on you, because we've all had a lifetime of conditioning.

You are asserting that everyone thinks like you, though. You say that everyone has these biases that effect their behaviour, and I really don't think that's true.

As for being rude, well, perhaps I was a bit brusque, but I was replying to the fact that you admitted that you had accused literally everyone in the world of being sexist. That doesn't really endear me to you. I'm usually quite polite, but when someone levels baseless accusations at billions of people...

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But there are also biases we hold that are impossible to pick up one.

If they were actually effecting your behaviour, you'd be able to pick up on them. If you're biased in a way that doesn't affect your behaviour in any way at all, so much so that you can't detect it, can you really call that a bias? Even if it is a bias, it's beyond benign.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I don't want to get into it too much here, so I'll just link this article explaining it: http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/. It's these types of unconscious biases that seep into our reading and interpretation of female (and male) characters.

I followed that link, and it was one of the most frustratingly vague and contradictory things I've ever read. Everyone has them, even if they don't want them. They're malleable, but they're not accessible through introspection. They don't necessarily align with our stated beliefs, but they don't necessarily oppose them. Sometimes the biases support our "ingroup", but you can also hold biases against your ingroup. What meaning does it have, then? You can have, say, an unconscious bias against women, but be any kind of person. You could outwardly be sexist, you could outwardly not be. Is the bias actually having any effect on your behaviour? And I love that, despite the fact that you can't access your bias through introspection, you can "cleanse" it in seven days! What utter tripe.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

there are hundreds of studies about this phenomenon.

Going back to the studies, there have been studies that directly contradict that unconscious bias has an effect on behaviour.

Here's a link from which you can download a 2016 study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308926636_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Change_in_Implicit_Bias

The study found that, essentially, unconscious bias had little to no effect on behaviour, so much so that changing said biases didn't result in any change in behaviour.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

TL;DR so do I think everyone is sexist? No, to call everyone sexist is to make the term meaningless

Hm. I agree.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But I do think no one is immune to being sexist.

I really don't know what that means. No one is immune to being shot in the head. Most people don't get shot in the head. To put it another, less facetious way, it's a common saying that everybody has the potential for evil, or that everyone has the potential to become a murderer. But that doesn't mean that evil pervades the opinions of all people, or that most people look on things with murderous intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2018 at 11:38 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

Something to do with Dany being feminine AND occupying traditional male roles. It's easier for people to accept a masculine female character doing that than a feminine one, which is why we get so many action flicks with emotionless (and dull) female leads.

 

Yeah, I agree with this. I often get the feeling that 'Strong female lead' translates into 'Rambo with tits'. And it's getting boring.

For me, it's because Arya is younger but also because she's not allowed to be her true self. The only thing stopping Dany is Dany. And Arya tends to target specific cretins, instead of swathes of men and women she's never met. There's an innocence to Arya despite her lust for revenge. Also, Dany is a political figure. Whether she stands tall at the apex of Mereen or on the back of Drogon. Her political identity is apparent and inescapable. Arya is no one. She can be a blind orphan, or a prostitute, or a soldier, or a spy. She could be anything apart from what the world wants her to be. I think that speaks to people more than a capricious queen with the wold at her feet. And I don't even mean to be nasty, there. It's just how she's coming across right now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, zandru said:

Nonsense. She's often described as looking more and more like Lyanna Stark, who had a "wild beauty" that, with her bravery, captured Prince Rhaegar's heart. Sansa is conventionally beautiful, old Disney-princess charming.** Cat thinks Sansa is more attractive than herself at that age, but that's a mother's thinking and a Tully's thinking, in my opinion. Catelyn was unimpressed by Eddard Stark, too, at the beginning, and never met Lyanna, as far as we know.

I'd brand it an opposing opinion. That's still allowed, right?   ;-)

-------------

** I realize that Disney princesses have come a long way from Snow White!

It's more than having a long face.  She is called horseface.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do kids call each others when they want to hurt or pick on someone? Do they say, "oh you're so gorgeous/smart/awesome? Or do they call them names they know the others won't like?

But we know Lyanna was a yoing woman of surpassing loveliness, and we know Arya looks like her. And that's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×