Jump to content
Damon_Tor

GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Very stupid, but then, that's how the showrunners roll.  I hope they are intending that she 'snapped' but I don't even really like that too much, rather than she is supposed to now be like clinically INSANE as opposed to having just gone rogue and turned into the tyrant instead of the liberator she fancies herself.  

If she just snapped and is rational next ep it would be more interesting. It would be cool to see how she handled the situation and tried to show to her suporters that she isn t insane… That she made a bad decision and regrets it… That she needs help...

Do you think it will happen after all the effort to make her look insane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I don't remember my history lessons exactly, but I think all Nazi party members were considered guilty, even today. The Nuremberg trials were just a formality to punish the top ranking officers. Most Nazis died in the war, some fled, others cut deals, etc. Banality of evil and all that. Don't they still arrest WWII Nazis, as geriatric as they are now? You nab them and ask them what they did, and voila, you have the charge. You do know that every single Nazi committed a crime, right? They didn't just sit around at home and have nothing to do with the Holocaust. That why they went to WAR and shot everyone wearing the uniform. If Churchill ordered his officers to grab 163 top ranking Nazis and execute them for the Holocaust, would he have committed a war crime? Would the guilt of those officers ever be in any doubt? No. 

I doubt very seriously that Robert H. Jackson, who was a big proponent of holding people accountable for war crimes, thought Nuremberg was a "mere formality".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, divica said:

If she just snapped and is rational next ep it would be more interesting. It would be cool to see how she handled the situation and tried to show to her suporters that she isn t insane… That she made a bad decision and regrets it… That she needs help...

Do you think it will happen after all the effort to make her look insane?

I don't really think she will be insane, she already gave her reasons:  Cersei sees mercy as weakness, the people of KL failed to  revolt against Cersei, a tyrant, and Cersei is counting on her mercy to the KL residents to help her win, but Dany is providing mercy to FUTURE generations, e.g. she sees the people in KL as collateral damage, necesssary for her to send a message, and expendable because unlike the slaves in Essos, they didn't revolt, she sees them as complicit.....

That's how I read that scene anyway, but then it wouldnt' be the first or the 10th time that what the show put in the show isn't what they want the audience to recognize.

Edited by Cas Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, divica said:

They nailed it if she was known as an insane person...

Until last ep she was perfectly rational and saw herself as a savior of the inocent...

I have no idea how she can rationalize burning the city when they surrendered and she could have gone and killed the person she hates… They can t even justify it emotionally… If she had only burned the red keep I could support that they nailed it...

You or I would restrict ourselves to the Red Keep.

Dany is avenging a lifetime of being "raped, abused, defiled" (as she puts it), being driven from her rightful position, being betrayed, being treated with contempt by those she risked her life to save, realising that someone else has a better claim to the IT, having her substitute family ripped apart.

This is not rational, but nor is it insane.  It's human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The Nazis were a party. Lol. 

Grand Master is an official title given to slave masters with political power. It's in the books that Grand Masters rule the city. If Dany killed Grand Masters' friends, family, chess buddies, etc, then it would be collective punishment. She orders the deaths of 163 officials who would undoubtedly be responsible for the decision to kill those children, even if they are not the ones who went out there and hung the bodies on the crosses. 

They probably meant make it personal against Cersei, not the people in KL. She burns KL right in front of Cersei's eyes, and slowly moves in on the Red Keep. Then again, these might have been more empty words from D&D.

I don't remember my history lessons exactly, but I think all Nazi party members were considered guilty, even today. The Nuremberg trials were just a formality to punish the top ranking officers. Most Nazis died in the war, some fled, others cut deals, etc. Banality of evil and all that. Don't they still arrest WWII Nazis, as geriatric as they are now? You nab them and ask them what they did, and voila, you have the charge. You do know that every single Nazi committed a crime, right? They didn't just sit around at home and have nothing to do with the Holocaust. That why they went to WAR and shot everyone wearing the uniform. If Churchill ordered his officers to grab 163 top ranking Nazis and execute them for the Holocaust, would he have committed a war crime? Would the guilt of those officers ever be in any doubt? No. 

Because slavery in ancient times was not practiced the way it was in the US, and how they do in Slaver's Bay. People were enslaved by war or debt in ancient times, and for most cases could liberate themselves. There was no legislation to call them subhumans. Also the slaves in the US came from many different ethnic groups and tribes. African isn't a single "race." Slave-based economies are very much American, and that's what GRRM shows in Slaver's Bay, right down to the Reconstruction. 

Yes, dude, slavery is bad. Doing something against it with the right intention is always good, even if the person doing so is otherwise bad. Most people who want to portray Dany as a potential tyrant just simply refer to the brutality of the punishments she metes out to the slave masters. They don't double down on defending the slave masters like you are doing here. You can't call Dany bad when her intentions are good. 

 

Wow. How do people find Daenerys' actions unrealistic, when there are people in real life who think like this?

Edited by Panos Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The Nazis were a party. Lol. 

Grand Master is an official title given to slave masters with political power. It's in the books that Grand Masters rule the city. If Dany killed Grand Masters' friends, family, chess buddies, etc, then it would be collective punishment. She orders the deaths of 163 officials who would undoubtedly be responsible for the decision to kill those children, even if they are not the ones who went out there and hung the bodies on the crosses. 

They probably meant make it personal against Cersei, not the people in KL. She burns KL right in front of Cersei's eyes, and slowly moves in on the Red Keep. Then again, these might have been more empty words from D&D.

I don't remember my history lessons exactly, but I think all Nazi party members were considered guilty, even today. The Nuremberg trials were just a formality to punish the top ranking officers. Most Nazis died in the war, some fled, others cut deals, etc. Banality of evil and all that. Don't they still arrest WWII Nazis, as geriatric as they are now? You nab them and ask them what they did, and voila, you have the charge. You do know that every single Nazi committed a crime, right? They didn't just sit around at home and have nothing to do with the Holocaust. That why they went to WAR and shot everyone wearing the uniform. If Churchill ordered his officers to grab 163 top ranking Nazis and execute them for the Holocaust, would he have committed a war crime? Would the guilt of those officers ever be in any doubt? No. 

Because slavery in ancient times was not practiced the way it was in the US, and how they do in Slaver's Bay. People were enslaved by war or debt in ancient times, and for most cases could liberate themselves. There was no legislation to call them subhumans. Also the slaves in the US came from many different ethnic groups and tribes. African isn't a single "race." Slave-based economies are very much American, and that's what GRRM shows in Slaver's Bay, right down to the Reconstruction. 

Yes, dude, slavery is bad. Doing something against it with the right intention is always good, even if the person doing so is otherwise bad. Most people who want to portray Dany as a potential tyrant just simply refer to the brutality of the punishments she metes out to the slave masters. They don't double down on defending the slave masters like you are doing here. You can't call Dany bad when her intentions are good. 

 

Yes, I can and I do and I will and everyone else should too.  But, obviously, a lot of people aren't capable of understanding the point of her story, which is exactly that:  good intentions can result in bad outcomes and good intentions does not absolve anyone of their bad deeds.

I'm not defending the slave masters, LMAO, but of course you would think that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Did you ever consider that many ordinary Germans might have joined the Nazi party for various reasons, without committing any crimes specifically? I'm pretty sure Osksar Schindler was a Nazi Party member. Did he deserve to die?

Ok maybe I should have differentiated between the general members and the military ones. The point is, the Great Masters here are the rulers of the city. Why would you assume that any one of them would be ignorant of the crucifixion of over a hundred children? They are not passive watchers, low ranking members of a family that happens to own slaves, wives or cousins of the slavers, but the slave masters themselves. That's like suggesting the many members of the top ranks of the Nazi Party were ignorant of the Holocaust. That's like suggesting any member of the Nazi party was ignorant of it. As you mention, Schindler was a party member too. But he did save people as he could, which the Allies became aware of. If there was any slave master actually against slavery, wouldn't the slaves have informed Dany, so she could have allies inside the city? Of course not, it doesn't happen. There's nothing in the books to suggest we should question their guilt. We can question Dany's actions, but that's a different matter. 

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes, I can and I do and I will and everyone else should too.  But, obviously, a lot of people aren't capable of understanding the point of her story, which is exactly that:  good intentions can result in bad outcomes and good intentions does not absolve anyone of their bad deeds.

I'm not defending the slave masters, LMAO, but of course you would think that.

So Dany has good intentions in wanting to free people, but the outcome of those intentions--liberating slave cities--is bad? It's bad that the slave-based economy is slowing collapsing? 

You may not realize it but defending slavers is exactly what you are doing. 

If you think GRRM is trying to show that good intentions have bad outcomes in Dany's arc in Slaver's Bay, you are wrong. He's trying to show that war doesn't win everything. Once Dany defeats the slavers, things don't naturally resort to being rosy for Dany or her cities. Mereen and Astapor don't become shining beacons of freedom overnight. To do that, Dany has to rule. And she's learning that building something is far more difficult than destroying something. 

She realizes that she made a mistake in Astapor, which is returned to the slavers after she leaves. She wants to make it right in Mereen. She's supposed to fix challenges even a US Congress with hundreds of members couldn't effectively solve. 

You can look to Ned's arc to find out that good intentions don't justify bad deeds. He doesn't commit crimes against humanity in his POV chapters, but he does screw up big time. His intentions are always honorable though, but it goes badly for everyone, especially Ned. Also, Robb. Doesn't turn out as intended either. 

Edited by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't really think she will be insane, she already gave her reasons:  Cersei sees mercy as weakness, the people of KL failed to  revolt against Cersei, a tyrant, and Cersei is counting on her mercy to the KL residents to help her win, but Dany is providing mercy to FUTURE generations, e.g. she sees the people in KL as collateral damage, necesssary for her to send a message, and expendable because unlike the slaves in Essos, they didn't revolt, she sees them as complicit.....

That's how I read that scene anyway, but then it wouldnt' be the first or the 10th time that what the show put in the show isn't what they want the audience to recognize.

The problem is that danny had already won! The people in KL surrendered to danny.

They became her subjects…. I can t see the logic in her actions...

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

You or I would restrict ourselves to the Red Keep.

Dany is avenging a lifetime of being "raped, abused, defiled" (as she puts it), being driven from her rightful position, being betrayed, being treated with contempt by those she risked her life to save, realising that someone else has a better claim to the IT, having her substitute family ripped apart.

This is not rational, but nor is it insane.  It's human.

How is killing everybody in KL avenging anything? she has never even met those people… 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, divica said:

The problem is that danny had already won! The people in KL surrendered to danny.

They became her subjects…. I can t see the logic in her actions...

How is killing everybody in KL avenging anything? she has never even met those people… 

 

You get one chance to surrender to someone besieging you.  One chance.  When your leader responds to the demand for surrender by beheading the opposing leader's closest friend, your fate is sealed, if the city falls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Ok maybe I should have differentiated between the general members and the military ones. The point is, the Great Masters here are the rulers of the city. Why would you assume that any one of them would be ignorant of the crucifixion of over a hundred children? They are not passive watchers, low ranking members of a family that happens to own slaves, wives or cousins of the slavers, but the slave masters themselves. That's like suggesting the many members of the top ranks of the Nazi Party were ignorant of the Holocaust. That's like suggesting any member of the Nazi party was ignorant of it. As you mention, Schindler was a party member too. But he did save people as he could, which the Allies became aware of. If there was any slave master actually against slavery, wouldn't the slaves have informed Dany, so she could have allies inside the city? Of course not, it doesn't happen. There's nothing in the books to suggest we should question their guilt. We can question Dany's actions, but that's a different matter. 

The whole point of Nuremburg was to establish individual guilt for individual crimes. Why do you think they had individual trials?

Some people might have been part of the Nazi party, but didn't break any law. Others may have not been Nazi's and yet committed war crimes. I'm pretty sure von Manstein wasn't a party member but was found guilty of committing a war crime. Being a member of the Nazi Party simply wasn't a necessary or sufficient condition to find somebody guilty for specific crimes committed. Suppose Schindler had got executed simply for being a member because nobody bothered to examine the individual facts in his case?

Nobody has any idea which masters approved or disapproved the crucifixion of the children. In fact, it's quite possible that some who acted the most egregiously walked free, while some who acted less so, got executed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

The whole point of Nuremburg was to establish individual guilt for individual crimes. Why do you think they had individual trials?

Some people might have been part of the Nazi party, but didn't break any law. Others may have not been Nazi's and yet committed war crimes. I'm pretty sure von Manstein wasn't a party member but was found guilty of committing a war crime. Being a member of the Nazi Party simply wasn't a necessary or sufficient condition to find somebody guilty for specific crimes committed. Suppose Schindler had got executed simply for being a member because nobody bothered to examine the individual facts in his case?

Nobody has any idea which masters approved or disapproved the crucifixion of the children. In fact, it's quite possible that some who acted the most egregiously walked free, while some who acted less so, got executed.

I'd be very surprised if the Shavepate was guiltless, but he wriggled free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I'd be very surprised if the Shavepate was guiltless, but he wriggled free.

I'm sure the Shavepate was all about it. And then slimed his way out of it after Dany took Mereen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

You get one chance to surrender to someone besieging you.  One chance.  When your leader responds to the demand for surrender by beheading the opposing leader's closest friend, your fate is sealed, if the city falls.

But they aren t even soldiers. They are just unfortunate people that happen to live in kl...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, divica said:

But they aren t even soldiers. They are just unfortunate people that happen to live in kl...

Quite so.  In our world, Daenerys would be facing life in prison for murdering civilians.  In her world, few people distinguish between leaders and the people who follow them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Nobody has any idea which masters approved or disapproved the crucifixion of the children. In fact, it's quite possible that some who acted the most egregiously walked free, while some who acted less so, got executed.

Like I asked before, why should we consider that slave master's were not equally guilty? We have a specific crime and a group that committed it. Dany executes 163 members of that group in an eye-for-eye style revenge attack. What's there in the books to suggest that they were not all guilty of the crime all the same? What gives that some masters spoke against crucifying the children or somehow thought it was morally wrong? I thought going eye-for-eye was wrong, but I don't get why we should consider any of the GM that got executed any less deserving of the guilt. You used the term collective punishment before. I'm going to use the term collective guilt here.

And I think Dany realizes later that some guilty people have gotten away with it. That's why she considers going even far to punish them. Dany doesn't execute the whole group in question here, just 163 to like match the crime. That's on par with medieval, ASOIAF justice. I mean she could have executed them all, but doesn't. 

(And anyway wasn't what they did like general practice in Slaver's Bay against slaves who resisted the masters? Not sure though, but I think so). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeanF said:

 In our world, Daenerys would be facing life in prison for murdering civilians.  

And Dany turned 21 in prison, doing life without parole

No one could steer her right, but Tyrion tried, Tyrion tried

Tyrion tried to teach her better, but his pleading she denied

That only leaves Dany to blame 'cause Tyrion tried

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Like I asked before, why should we consider that slave master's were not equally guilty? We have a specific crime and a group that committed it. Dany executes 163 members of that group in an eye-for-eye style revenge attack. What's there in the books to suggest that they were not all guilty of the crime all the same? What gives that some masters spoke against crucifying the children or somehow thought it was morally wrong? I thought going eye-for-eye was wrong, but I don't get why we should consider any of the GM that got executed any less deserving of the guilt. You used the term collective punishment before. I'm going to use the term collective guilt here.

And I think Dany realizes later that some guilty people have gotten away with it. That's why she considers going even far to punish them. Dany doesn't execute the whole group in question here, just 163 to like match the crime. That's on par with medieval, ASOIAF justice. I mean she could have executed them all, but doesn't. 

(And anyway wasn't what they did like general practice in Slaver's Bay against slaves who resisted the masters? Not sure though, but I think so). 

The point is we don't know the individual culpability of those who got executed because Dany never bothered to find out.

And there is no reason to assume they were all equally guilty. That is an assumption you are trying to impose in order to make your argument work.

There might have been a specific crime committed, but we don't know each individual's specific culpability with respect to it.

I don't know how to explain it any clearer.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 4:11 AM, Sadras said:

You just told a victim of that crime, who has experienced the actual horror, she is misunderstanding what RAPE looks like. Do you understand what you just did?

Yes. I disagreed with her. Not all those who’ve suffered sexual abuse will arrive at the conclusion on things regarding it I could just as easily cite survivors who agree my sentiments.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/ok-sexual-violence-game-thrones-gone-far/

And I’ve talked with other survivors who expressed similar sentiments to the author. I’m not going to accuse you of acting wrongly if you disagree with the author for having an opposing view towards your in it of itself in regards to this scene

On 5/16/2019 at 4:11 AM, Sadras said:

Firstly, I was not commenting on Cersei's physical strength. She is a strong character, has been even when young, as witnessed on the show. She is forceful and if she wanted Jaime off she could have resisted his sexual advances. fairly easily, voice or otherwise. She controls him, she has the power, not him. To not see that, is to not fully understand Cersei (and Jaime for that matter). The woman is everything to him. He could never rape her. 

No, Jamie isn’t some helpless duckling especially at this juncture of his life where he shortly after helps Tyrion(someone who Cersi thinks murdered their son) escape. He did not stop when Cersi began to weep or try to push him off. He did not obey her all things. And, still no to this idea of her not resisting more making this not rape.

On 5/16/2019 at 4:11 AM, Sadras said:

Secondly, their intimate relationship is taboo just like the place he sought to be intimate which was improper, but that is their entire sexual history. Nothing about them is ok, but in the end they give in to their base desires. There is this its-wrong-but-it-feels-good, push-pull relationship that exists. This scene reflected it perfectly!

No their relationship being taboo, doesn’t actually mean it’s generally not consensual.This scene was a break from how they typically act. They’re relationship being taboo that doesn’t mean all sex, regardless of what the other says or does is consensual.

On 5/16/2019 at 4:11 AM, Sadras said:

Thirdly, I'm sure you understand this, but it seems I have to explain it to you - males are sexually forward, it is part of the mating ritual [ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE REFERRING TO TWO PEOPLE WITH AN INTIMATE HISTORY, SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND]. Men are sexually more aggressive, while females flirt/tease to get what they want. That is being human. Being sexually aggressive/forward in this instance is not equivalent to rape, it is a but a precursor like foreplay, except in this instance there is some reluctance from the other party. Kind of like when someone offers you something to eat, and you out of politeness/diet/shyness might say no and they keep pressing till you accept. You don't necessarily call this act force-feeding, You want the chocolate or the food offered but were to shy or whatever to accept. Same with this situation, the location/timing was horribly improper, hence her initial resistance.

Yeah, no. Pressuring someone to cave into your sexual desires, isn’t rape in it of itself, but proceeding to act on your sexual desires regardless of being told no and being shown physical resistance is. Which is what Jamie did. Cersi in the end did not accept this. Hence her begging Jamie to stop, and  trying to physically resist. crying afterwards. Jamie did not have her Consent when he began fuck her.  Whatever her reasons for refusing-she did. It’s not less of an assault by virtue of you not seeing as good enough reason for her refusal. The fact is she refused him, and Jamie didn’t stop. And once again having relationship with 

On 5/16/2019 at 4:11 AM, Sadras said:

Fifth, if this was RAPE as you say, do the scenes that follow and their ongoing relationship make any sense for someone who was RAPED? Really?

Whether they do or don’t it really wouldn’t make the scene that had been depicted prior them not rape. 

On 5/16/2019 at 4:11 AM, Sadras said:

I cannot explain it any better. If you still do not agree - well then we are sadly at an impasse.

Probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The point is we don't know the individual culpability of those who got executed because Dany never bothered to find out.

And there is no reason to assume they were all equally guilty. There might have been a specific crime committed, but we don't know each individuals specific culpability with respect to it.

Right I get it. You want to emphasize individual culpability in an action taken as a group, in which case Dany just executing 163 without a trial or even a questioning would be totally wrong. I'm trying to say that they all share collective guilt, even if the idea came from just one guy. The others endorsed it, went through with it, and had it worked, everyone would have benefited from the action. So in this sense Dany's decision to hold all of them guilty is not wrong. Therefore, her eye-for-and-eye punishment wouldn't be wrong either. She makes the GM suffer proportionately (technically) to the slaves and their children. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Right I get it. You want to emphasize individual culpability in an action taken as a group, in which case Dany just executing 163 without a trial or even a questioning would be totally wrong. I'm trying to say that they all share collective guilt, even if the idea came from just one guy. The others endorsed it, went through with it, and had it worked, everyone would have benefited from the action. So in this sense Dany's decision to hold all of them guilty is not wrong. Therefore, her eye-for-and-eye punishment wouldn't be wrong either. She makes the GM suffer proportionately (technically) to the slaves and their children. 

 

You're making a whole bunch of assumptions here.

And as they say:

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

Edited by OldGimletEye

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

×