If Dany becomes mad, it will cement the idea that all westerosi queens in their own right are unworthy.

[OldGimletEye]

4 hours ago, AlaerysTargaryen said:

I'm the OP. It is my argument and my inner  conflict with the story as of where its headed. Daenerys failing as a Queen , from a mathematical point of view is a 3out of 3 of unworthy queens and  100% because she is a woman who bit off more than she could chew. It lays downs the idea that a woman in the ultimate seat of power is wrong, because women let emotions get in their way. This is not just a fantasy novel way of thinking but real world. Yes , theres been bad kings, batshit crazy kings and politically stupid men who rule. But they lived and died ruling. If Jon wasnt in the picture, what would Varys do. What would the westerosi lords think, because you know cocks do matter? It isnt a question of what Daenerys deserves and what shell get it, it is her being written into a place and evil characterisation for making ruthless decisions that men have made before and stayed in power with respect and admiration.

I thought the argument was it's the fact that the three queens failed for the same reason and not the fact that the three queens (or two queens since evidently there is an argument that only things shown in the show are pertinent to the discussion) failed. Which one is it? It's not clear to me from this post which argument we are having. This argument would be lot more fruitful if we could agree on the actual scope of the argument. I thought we had reached a consensus on that. But, maybe not.

Anyway, again:

1. There is really nothing unusual about three 3 queens failing to rule, or matriculating into good rulers. Male rulers fail all the time. In fact, three male rulers failed to be good rulers one after another. That is three failed male rulers right in a row.

2. Sure there is lot of sexism in Westeros. Just like their is a lot of classism in Westeros. That is the nature of their society. Nobody thinks that is right of course. But there is nothing particularly insidious about showing those problems/issues within a feudal society that exist in Westeros.

3. Certainly people that have a bias against women rulers would claim that the failure of three queens to matriculate into good rulers is "proof" that women are not fit to rule. I'm sure people that live in the Westeros universe and in our own universe would engage in that type of reasoning. But, like I said, many people are very bad at inductive logic. They are basically engaging in confirmation bias. There is no particular reason to believe that three failed female rulers means anything with regard to the capabilities of female rulers versus male ones. Male rulers fail all the time. In fact, for any given male ruler, it's more likely than not that they will be a failed monarch. Based on what we know about the failure rates of male rulers, we'd expect high failure rates among female ones too. The fact is that only a minority of individuals seemingly have the right combination of intelligence, temperament, skills, and ethics to be good rulers in Westeros. Though likely the high failure rates with regard to rulers probably has a lot to do with the institutional makeup of Westeros.

Basically, it seems like the argument here is that the story needs to be corrected to account for all the people that are very bad at inductive logic. One wonders though, how any story would turn out, if you always had to account for knuckleheads, that couldn't make a reasonable inference, if their life dependent on it.

4. The fact that no female has sat the IT proves what? It proves that a society like Westeros is very sexist. But we already knew that. Does any reasonable person think that says anything about the abilities of woman rulers? As I pointed out, after William I took the throne in 1066, England went almost 500 years before having a female monarch. What do reasonable people conclude from that? That women aren't capable of ruling? Of course, not. Does the fact that the first woman to sit the throne in England, Mary, did not turn out so hot as ruler prove anything about the capabilities of women rulers. Well, only if you have a huge bias to begin with.

5. I think the underlying argument here (depending of course on which argument we're actually having) would be lot stronger if all, or most, of the male rulers were shown to be wise, just, and effective rulers, while the female rulers were always shown to be incompetent. But, nothing of the sort has happened within the story. Male rulers within in the story have often been shown to be lazy, irresponsible, mentally unstable, stupid, and if I think about it hard enough, there are probably examples of male rulers acting out of anger, i.e., being emotional.

[darksellsword]

There is a blatant inconsistency with how the writers have written Cersei and Daenerys that seems to overlap both character arcs. They write scenes that demonstrate Cersei being a cruel child much the same as Joffrey, ie the scene where Tyrion reminds Cersei of the time she had a servant girl beaten so badly the girl lost an eye. The flashback scene where we witness Cersei say to her companion "you don't need to be afraid of my father" with the implication that her friend has more reason to be afraid of going against her wishes than anything her father could say on the matter. She then threatens the woods witch with having her "two boring eyes gouged out" if she didn't tell her fortune. Althought it isn't in the show there is a story that inferred Cersei pushed her Childhood friend down a well merely because Jaime had feelings for the girl. It is inconsistent with scenes such as Cersei telling Margaery Tyrell that Joffrey would've been her nightmare, that the things he did shocked her "do you think I'm easily shocked, what he did shocked me" what was it that was so shocking about how Joffrey behaved that was so shocking to a woman like Cersei?. He cut off Ned starks head, was it that? doubtful, was it whipping Sansa for Robbs treasons, nah she didn't care about that or ninety nine percent of the things he did. You could suggest that perhaps Cersei was minipulating Margaery in an attempt to reconcile her with the idea of marrying into her family but it is a big stretch and her comment had an unnecessary amount of forthright sincerity to it considering Cersei would instinctively know that Margaery Tyrell would be perfectly willing to marry Tommen without any contrition for Joffreys behaviour. It was a continuance of an ambiguous duality of Cerseis motivation. The show has always tried to keep the audience unsure whether Cersei is just a ruthless Mother that will stop at nothing when defending her children that is ultimately driven mad by the loss of her Children in her mind as a result of hostile exterior forces on the other hand Cersei can be seen as a woman that is cruel and vindictive by nature and power hungry. Daenerys character arc overlaps with the former. She has altruistic intentions for her actions but is met with unreasonable amounts of hostile resistance and suffers losses that may ultimately lead to her being driven mad. Daenerys quest for the iron throne always appeared to be a restorative one rather than a hunger for power. Cerseis demise is earned where as Daenerys isn't.  I suspect there will more than a few disgruntled fans by the end. I really hate this idea that anyone that believes they are the rightful ruler would be delusional if they thought it was destiny. The idea of hereditary monarchy is intrinsically intertwined with destiny, show Varys is an idiot.

[ShadowKitteh]

On 5/7/2019 at 10:43 AM, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Im still baffled what was the point of "We have to tell him" and truth playing. He wasn't AA or Tptwp. Was the only reason is because he wants his bro on the Iron throne. Really? 

This may have been addressed in the pages since Page 4, if so, apologies.

But per the books, and Dany’s vision in the HotU, Jon is TPtwP. She sees Rhaegar holding a baby, with a dark haired woman, obviously Lyanna, and he says, “He is the Prince that was Promised, and his is the Song of Ice and Fire.” Assuming the woman is Elia, is simply incorrect. Except it’s a natural supposition for Dany, because she’s unaware of Lyanna. And for book readers as well, if you failed to get the R+L=J info from Ned’s Tower of Joy chapter in the first book. Everything you need to know about Jon’s identity & status is the fact three Kingsguard fight to the death, something they’d never do over a bastard.

The vision, like all the other visions in the HotU, are not literal recordings of events that happened, or future events, but representations to convey information. She sees the aftermath of what the Red Wedding caused; dead people at a feast with a wolf-headed king on a throne. Robb was never on a throne at the RW. Just like there’s never an actual mummers dragon, but Young Griff instead. 

I firmly believe Jon is TPtwP, and AAR. Dany and her dragons together are Lightbringer, which so far in the show, Jon has had a hand in wielding.

Cersei has always been the final boss. The Darkness is likely the opportunity the Night King/AotD/Others/Great Other gives Cersei to be in a position to be worse than Aerys the Mad King, and come close to wiping out humane humanity.

Arya was always going to kill the Night King. Why else make her a Faceless Man, with all kinds of insane training? It was sealed when Bran gave her the catspaw dagger. Too important of a weapon to just kill Littlefinger. 

Im hoping Dany’s madness, stupidity, & rage, are all temporary, and will be easily understood when it comes from her in a Daenerys chapter. 

 

[Areisius]

On 5/7/2019 at 2:52 AM, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Rhaenyra Targaryen, stupid and mad for wanting to inherit her birthright and her father legacy. 

 

Rhaenys, the queen that never was. Well there wer better "men".  

Cersei , she deserves everything that's coming for her. And how come Dany will be the Mad quenn if Cersei already is. 

 

Daenerys Targaryen. Well thanks to the gods that there was a last minute secret Targ baby that doesnt want the throne, cause she is mad, for accepting that there will be inoccents dying in common warfare.   

 

Isn't that incedibly sexist, that there always is a better job. Westeros will never accept a Queen after such a record. The only revered queen is Alyssane, a good consort queen and wife capable of producing children. Will this  be the note that asoaif ends? Jon is a better ruler cause he has a dick?

Can it be sexist when they're pushing Sansa to be the queen of Kings Landing? What I see happening on the show is turning everybody against Dany via Sansa.

[Stark_in_Winterfell]

On 5/7/2019 at 9:52 AM, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Rhaenyra Targaryen, stupid and mad for wanting to inherit her birthright and her father legacy. 

 

Rhaenys, the queen that never was. Well there wer better "men".  

Cersei , she deserves everything that's coming for her. And how come Dany will be the Mad quenn if Cersei already is. 

 

Daenerys Targaryen. Well thanks to the gods that there was a last minute secret Targ baby that doesnt want the throne, cause she is mad, for accepting that there will be inoccents dying in common warfare.   

 

Isn't that incedibly sexist, that there always is a better job. Westeros will never accept a Queen after such a record. The only revered queen is Alyssane, a good consort queen and wife capable of producing children. Will this  be the note that asoaif ends? Jon is a better ruler cause he has a dick?

It is. For what its worth, I think Martin wrote it this way to put it in our face and make people look at it. Yet like any writer, he wanted his work to be liked and so had to appease our own prejudices, otherwise his books never would have been made into the successful series it has been.

There are a lot of fantasy series written with women heroes and power. They aren't being made into movies and tv series for the simple reason of money. It costs a lot of money to make this genre into screen time. They need to attract a large enough audience to make it financially viable. I don't like it either. 

I am currently in the process of converting some of my tougher female characters into males so I can sell the stories. It is important to write what we love. But to make money off it, then it has to be modified into something marketable.

[Hodor the Articulate]

On 5/11/2019 at 6:46 AM, Wildling Queen said:

I completely hear what you're saying and I love the fact that there have been incredibly strong and nuanced depictions of female characters in this story. The Iron Throne, though, is the symbol of power and a barometer of discussion here for a reason. What we're left with at the end of the day is the idea that Sansa can rule in the North, Yara can rule the Iron Islands, Brienne could absolutely lead the Queensguard, and all the other women can rule in different ways. But the ultimate seat of power needs a masculine figure with the masculine characteristics of logic and reason without emotion because, darn it, women need a male to keep them in check. 

I love this show, I love the books, I love the history. I love all of it. But pointing out certain issues within the themes of the story is what analysis and discussion are all about. This is one point that bothers me.

Exactly. It's saying women can have these limited leadership roles, but they're too crazy for the top job.

On 5/11/2019 at 6:40 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

I still think your standard of comparison is problematic, and goes against the larger themes of the pursuit of power through the #1 symbol of domination and conquest, the Iron Throne. If women want to pursue that they'll face the same fate as men. They'll be portrayed as violent, ruthless, narcissistic, and dead. "The game" is also a theme that drives women into bottomless morally bankrupt power plays if they want to win, so if you want a "good queen" to "win" and still be "good" this is impossible. This is the rules of the game he created. Women can still have ambition on other ways, but you're metric for "good queen" is to perpetuate a dynasty built on fire and blood, which absolutely needs to end. 

You seem to be uninterested in comparing women in the story, it's either Iron Throne or bust. That seems disingenuous. Asha is interesting because she could be the only elected queen in this story, and that absolutely is a foil to Cersei. She's a mirror character to Dany because she comes from a culture that practices "fire and sword" but she doesn't lose touch with her human side. Wherever Sansa ends up, she should have been next in line after Robb died, and should have inherited his title as Queen. Because she didn't get that (which is sadly a realistic scenario) that leaves her out of your analysis? She's acting as queen in the north in all but name, as she is the only one defending Northern independence and keeping it together at Winterfell. It's kind of a discriminatory to dismiss her like that. 

See above. I'm not going to expand the scope of comparison because it's irrelevant. We're looking at what the show is saying about women who seek ultimate positions of power for themselves (and by themselves), not women who were allowed limited forms of power by men.

To be clear, the problem is that both of the women who have sought the crown have been depicted as unsuitable because they're irrational, further reinforcing that sexist old trope. We would not be having this discussion if Dany had failed because she couldn't outsmart Cersei or whatever.

Asha is as much a foil to Cersei as Robb is a foil to Aegon the Unworthy. Neither the show nor the books make any deliberate symbolic connections between the characters.