Jump to content
Damon_Tor

GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I'm not your ethics teacher, go Google it and learn if you don't know what the terms mean. Then go re-read my posts and see if you can get the point I'm trying to make. 

I already read your arguments. And I know your point is that what Dany did was justified. But your arguments are basically a bunch of flim-flammery.

Quote

I'm not your ethics teacher

I'd certainly hope not. Otherwise, I'd likely get fed a bunch of shady horseshit.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

That's because women can write complex male characters without resorting to sexist stereotypes. You wouldn't even have known J.K. Rowling was a woman if she didn't appear in front of a camera considering Harry's character is so well written and relatable. Haven't read McCaffrey's, but there are so many female authors like Anne Rice, Lionel Shriver who write complex male protags without ruining their character or stories with sexist nonsense. Need I say George Eliot? The same can't be said of certain male authors, perhaps the majority of them. Can you think of a male author who writes complex female characters without resorting to stereotypes? Because I can't (at least not off the top of my head right now). 

Shakespeare. But that's really the only one I can think of.

Share this post


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

*collective punishment (not association; see edit)

I have a lot of problems with your logic. First, do you assume the Great Masters only had 163 members? That was a number meant to be punitive based on the crucified slave children with one per mile leading to the city on the road Dany was going to travel. It would be astronomically unlikely that the Great Masters were exactly 163 members. That's not like the SMALL council, that's an entire parliament.

If the Great Masters didnt have exactly 163 members then there was some element of decision about this person and not that person. Who arbitrated? Were they picked at random? Either one directly contradicts your sentiment because it wasn't a "collective" punishment as not all Great Masters were punished and some were chosen based on either culpability or random choice.

Secondly, let's assume it is, somehow, exactly 163 members. Are you assuming that all 163 approved? 163 people never agree on ANYTHING, not to mention murder. It is absolutely fair to assume their was some dissent. The show says this directly. But the point other posters are pressing for is that your broad assumptions regarding the "collective" decision making are not only unrealistic, but miss subtle points about how we apply morality.

In this situation, that means that a punishment is not morally justifiable if it does not distinguish between guilt by association and active complicity. I think you make a lot of errors in logic along the way, as mentioned above. Your musings about the American South and world slavery are also incredibly ill-informed and read like the beginning of a manifesto rather than analysis. It all sounds like you're trying to have facts fit ideology rather than weighing them on their merit. If that's your style of fandom or reading then have fun, but you're kinda getting dogpiled because you deciding to take that cognitive dissonance and discuss it on an analytical board. You are providing analysis and defending your points valiantly, I just think they are fallaciously devised.

Edited by Demetri

Share this post


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

Shakespeare. But that's really the only one I can think of.

Not a major (or even a minor) reader of Shakespeare here but Taming of the Shrew, hello. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Not a major (or even a minor) reader of Shakespeare here but Taming of the Shrew, hello. 

So now an author has to never have written a bad opposite sex character to qualify? That eliminates every single female author example you provided, then. 

It also changes the goalposts as you initially said "can write" a nuanced, stereotype free female character not "always writes"

Share this post


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

First, do you assume the Great Masters only had 163 members?

Lol, I so didn't say that. Dany orders 163 of them executed, I even quoted the passage, like where the hell is this even coming from? It's obvious that there's a lot of them if Dany managed to find 163 to execute to match the number of children they killed. 

5 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Secondly, let's assume it is, somehow, exactly 163 members. Are you assuming that all 163 approved? 163 people never agree on ANYTHING, not to mention murder. It is absolutely fair to assume their was some dissent. The show says this directly. But the point other posters are pressing for is that your broad assumptions regarding the "collective" decision making are not only unrealistic, but miss subtle points about how we apply morality.

Say what? No I said Dany punished them based on collective guilt, rather than collective punishment. Collective guilt means people of a certain group that undertakes an action as a group are responsible for that action. Meaning, if this action was a crime, then all are collectively guilty. Collective punishment means punishing people who are associated with someone who is guilty, like family members or friends. The OP there was arguing that Dany was meting out collective punishment, and I disagreed because the GM are not random people in Mereen, but the rulers of the city. 

You do realize that how we apply morality now doesn't apply to how people in ASOIAF apply morality? Like we don't behead people, but they still do and so on. 

8 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Secondly, let's assume it is, somehow, exactly 163 members. Are you assuming that all 163 approved? 163 people never agree on ANYTHING, not to mention murder. It is absolutely fair to assume their was some dissent. The show says this directly.

The GM of Mereen naturally would have points of disagreements. But they agree broadly on being slavers. So why would you go out of your way to say that oh no, some of these people wouldn't be a-ok with killing slave children? We don't have any reason or details to show that anyone dissented. Dany blames the Grand Masters, not individual GM, and there's nothing saying that the kids were killed by so and so, and not GM as a whole. 

11 minutes ago, Demetri said:

In this situation, that means that a punishment is not morally justifiable if it does not distinguish between guilt by association and active complicity.

As I said before, Dany doesn't execute them because of associating with Grand Masters, because as GM they are collectively guilty of the action. I wanted to make this clear bc some people were arguing that Dany randomly executed a bunch of Mereenese slavers, but that's not what happens. 

13 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Your musings about the American South and world slavery are also incredibly ill-informed

I'm certainly not a historian. Feel free to point out exactly where I'm historically wrong about slavery in the American South. I was writing based on what I remember from school and college. 

Share this post


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

So now an author has to never have written a bad opposite sex character to qualify? That eliminates every single female author example you provided, then. 

It also changes the goalposts as you initially said "can write" a nuanced, stereotype free female character not "always writes"

Go on, give me examples of male characters based on sexist stereotypes that George Elliot, Lionel Shriver, Anne Rice, or Jo Rowling wrote then, each. 

What is wrong with you? You are twisting everything I wrote.

Edited by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I obviously understand that standards of morality change.

The thing is that "collective guilt" wasn't enough to warrant punishing SOME grand master but was for others. So what mechanism was used to determine which were chosen of the 163? If the guilt of the entire GMs is enough to warrant the killing of any of them then it should be for all of them.

This is where the distinction between collective guilt and collective punishment comes in. Why are they different? You state collective punishment is guilt by association and leads to family members. Who says? Collective punishment can be punishing an entire government or decision-making body (GMs) who perpetrate an immoral act (killing the slaves/slavery). You make another logic leap by assuming it means family members, but it doesn't have to. In fact, it would be quite easy to punish the GMs collectively as it is a title held. We don't need to go look for family members when we could conceivably get a list of prominent GMs and that list is likely greater than those killed. So what was the mechanism of choice? Because a King/Queen's justice is less about apply moral strictures and more about picking a particular moral standard and running with it. Hence why the lack of meaningful collective punishment (punishing all the masters as they all represent guilt) undermines your argument. The size of it further indicates that it is largely guilt by association rather than trying to figure out who did what. Yes, they were slavers, but someone came up with the idea. And that person obviously is more culpable than someone who voted, or argued, against it.

But either way, the act of killing 163 was not punishing ANYTHING collectively because the entire body of GMs (who you claim are cohesive enough share collective guilt) wasn't punished. There was a level of arbitrariness to it by necessity. That's because it was meant to be a lesson as much as a direct punishment. As you say, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If Dany wanted justice via the killing of GMs then she'd have killed all of them. Instead, some likely escaped justice and we have no reason to believe it was because of their relative lack of culpability.

I'm not certain that you're viewing it as an issue of "culpability" due to collective guilt of the body. You compared it to a small council but concede disagreements were natural and inevitable. I agree. I also agree they share a degree of collective culpability (inherently) for slavery as they were a force to perpetuate that trend. 

But if that is really the cause of punishment, why only 163? It allowed people who committed atrocities to walk and arbitrarily punished others. I m

Share this post


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

Go on, give me examples of male characters based on sexist stereotypes that George Elliot, Lionel Shriver, Anne Rice, or Jo Rowling wrote then, each. 

What is wrong with you? You are twisting everything I wrote.

I'm not twisting everything you wrote, I'm trying to point out what I see as logical flawsc and inherent inconsistencies.  Like saying "Taming of the Shrew" discounts Shakespeare as being considered. That was pointing to one work and one character/theme/whatever as being sexist. The dude wrote a LOT of stuff. Yet you 

I'll just do JKR since it's sitting right here: Ron and his little brother complex is an inherently male stereotype that he follows throughout the books. Fred and George as the mischievous boys always demanding attention. Cedric as the "pretty boy". Draco as living in the wake of his accomplished father. Harry's fixation on mommy. I could go on really easily. 

I could also go through all of those authors and find a poorly written character reliant on stereotypes. Literally every author in the history of authors has done this. 

Edited by Demetri

Share this post


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

Say what? No I said Dany punished them based on collective guilt, rather than collective punishment. Collective guilt means people of a certain group that undertakes an action as a group are responsible for that action. Meaning, if this action was a crime, then all are collectively guilty. Collective punishment means punishing people who are associated with someone who is guilty, like family members or friends. The OP there was arguing that Dany was meting out collective punishment, and I disagreed because the GM are not random people in Mereen, but the rulers of the city. 

This distinction is rather immaterial. The problem with this is that in the final analysis, a notion of collective guilt can be used to impose collective punishments. Collective punishment has always been horrifying. This justification just seemingly justifies it's use. Something like the fire bombing of Dresden could be justified under the theory you are trying to advance here.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You do realize that how we apply morality now doesn't apply to how people in ASOIAF apply morality? Like we don't behead people, but they still do and so on. 

Surely, your not taking a pure moral relativist stance here. Because, if you are, isn't Dany's war against slaver's immoral?

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The GM of Mereen naturally would have points of disagreements. But they agree broadly on being slavers. 

If status of slavers was a sufficient reason to for Dany to put people to death, then why not the Dothraki?

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

 We don't have any reason or details to show that anyone dissented.

We don't have any reason or details that everyone agreed.

16 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

As I said before, Dany doesn't execute them because of associating with Grand Masters, because as GM they are collectively guilty of the action. I wanted to make this clear bc some people were arguing that Dany randomly executed a bunch of Mereenese slavers, but that's not what happens. 

The distinction your trying to draw here is unpersuasive. Fact is that the notion of collective guilt can turn into much of the same kind of nastiness that occurs under collective punishment. The difference is pretty immaterial.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


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

We don't have any reason or details that everyone agreed.

Furthermore, logic suggests that a group of 163 or more NEVER agree COMPLETELY on everything. Especially when it involves murder. There is much more of a reason to assume that at least someone dissented in book land than not because not means that a large group of people used to fighting with one another unanimously signed off on a policy. Unlikely...

In the show, we actually do have reason to think there was dissent. That's because a character tells us about it. Hizdahr zo Loraq claims his dad was killed despite vehemently opposing the "kill slave children" plan. 

Edited by Demetri
clarity

Share this post


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

I'm not twisting everything you wrote, I'm trying to point out what I see as logical flaws.  Like saying "Taming of the Shrew" discounts Shakespeare as being considered.

That's definitely not what I said. Taming of the Shrew is infamous for it's terrible portrayal of women. That's why I pointed it out when that other poster mentioned Shakespeare as a male author who can write complex, non-sexist women. For the record, that doesn't mean Shakespeare is a bad writer. It doesn't mean Shakespeare's women should not be considered. It doesn't mean we should stop reading Shakespeare. It doesn't mean I think Shakespeare should be ignored in modern times. 

5 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I'll just do JKR since it's sitting right here: Ron and his little brother complex is an inherently male stereotype that he follows throughout the books.

Ron doesn't have a "little brother complex"? What in the world is that anyway? How is that some sexist male trope? If it's such a major man trope, what are other famous characters with that problem? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

 

Ron doesn't have a "little brother complex"? What in the world is that anyway? How is that some sexist male trope? If it's such a major man trope, what are other famous characters with that problem? 

Ron doesn't have something you've never heard of? Okay.... I'll note that you only respond to one of the many I laid out...

I also struggle to think that you're being serious. You've never heard of "little brother syndrome" or the concept of a little brother being envious of their more accomplished older sibling? If you've never encountered this in life or literature, perhaps you aren't the right person to be having this conversation. But either way, this inferiority complex of Ron's directly derives from his more accomplished older brothers and his more famous best friend. It permeates the entire novels. 

It doesn't have to be "little brother", it can be more simply seen as "Sibling rivalry" but oftentimes it is a younger brother towards an older brother. I'm certain you've heard of that one. There are still like 4 other examples that I listed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Collective Guilt versus Collective Punishment Distinction

Fact is that collective punishment has always been revolting. And it's outlawed today as a war crime.

The problem with the collective guilt rationale is that it can be used to justify the type of nastiness that happens under under collective punishment.

If somebody wants to seriously advance the idea of collective guilt as justification for extracting collective punishment, then I think they need to do at minimum two things:

1. Make a tight argument when it applies and when it does not.

2. Put severe limitations on the types of punishments that can be delivered under a theory of collective guilt. I might be ameanable to monetary awards. But, never to imposing capital punishment under theories of collective guilt because that will lead to similar nastiness as collective punishment.

Share this post


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

@OldGimletEye @Demetri

Are you using two accounts to reply to my posts? Wow this just got really pathetic. 

Gasp! Several people think my arguments are lacking! They must actually be the one person in the world who disagrees with me!

I've had this account since 2015, looks like he's had his since 2013. Are you really so self-centered as to think that somehow revolves around you? Do a little bit of research for a change instead of making groundless accusations. Also, if you read a bit more closely you'll see he and I actually disagree a bit.

Edited by Demetri

Share this post


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

It doesn't have to be "little brother", it can be more simply seen as "Sibling rivalry" but oftentimes it is a younger brother towards an older brother. I'm certain you've heard of that one.

Hahahahahahahaha. How is sibling rivalry between brothers sexist against males? So Stannis is a character GRRM wrote based on sexist male tropes? I love this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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?

The whole saga has been building up to her making this terrible decision. It is not forgivable, but it is no surprise.

Share this post


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

Hahahahahahahaha. How is sibling rivalry between brothers sexist against males? So Stannis is a character GRRM wrote based on sexist male tropes? I love this!

It is evident you have no idea what you're talking about. Ron is the little brother whose inferiority complex springs from that status and is affirmed by Harry's long shadow. It is a pretty male thing (confirmed by you saying you've never heard of it, lol). Perhaps I should pull the famous "It's a [gender] thing, you wouldn't understand." I just said sibling rivalry so you'd perhaps be able to understand it. It is sibling in nature. But is it really common that a little brother envies his older sister? No? How about a little brother envying his older brother? What's that? You've read that one before....

Edited by Demetri

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

×