Jump to content
Damon_Tor

GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

@Demetri

Oh. My. R'hllor. You don't know when to drop it do you? Dude you are WRONG about what you think is common law, slavery, etc. If you are not a "student" of American slavery history, then you shouldn't have pretended to know about it now should you? (Brazil!) Same goes for the common law thing. You mistook it for something it is clearly not. I'm sure learning Latin phrases in pre-law classes that your friends on TikTok don't understand is really exciting, but infusing them to your commentary doesn't make you sound smarter. If you feel insecure about your lawyering future because you made a mistake like this as a "law student," that's not my problem. 

Of course what Dany did is punitive genius. That's the whole point. She's not seeking restorative justice here, lol. (And that's the right term, not "recuperative") Who the hell on Planetos goes for restorative justice? Did GRRM include this scene to make Dany seem like a tyrant? No. It portrays the hard decisions she has to make. 

As I said before, stop giving sexist vitriol the guise of moral (or legal) arguments. You are applying modern legal concepts to Essos for no reason. I don't see you doing that for other characters. You are just perpetrating a common argument used against Dany pretending you just came up with it. Barfing up jargon from college isn't going to make the old argument often seen on this forum sound new. 

Edited by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Share this post


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

Legally, no one uses the term "common law" to refer to a set of laws practiced in one place. For example, in the US, there are certain laws that all states must follow. These are federal laws, as determined by the national government, not "common" law. 

The "law common to all" idea stems from this British system. However, in the modern world, the law of the land is really complex and combines different legal system. The US has both state and federal laws, and in certain areas tribal laws. In Canada, Quebec does its own French thing as far as I know. So it's inaccurate to refer to a "common law" anyway. The term exclusively refers to modern laws inherited from the British. 

So. Wrong. First, you aren't qualified to speak on legal discourse. You have no idea what terms people use, obviously. You understand this so little that it is astonishing. If you mean that no jurisdictions lack any codified law, then yea. But common law doesn't require a complete lack of codification or a lack of statutes. You do realize that the British did have royal decrees which were really the very first step in common law?

And what do you think the Supreme Court does? What happens if a law is ambiguous, what happens if a case brings out an unforeseen wrinkle not controlled directly by statute? Common law (and the entire body of jurisprudence) comes in. It ALWAYS has in the U.S. and Britain since courts were organized. 

Second, entire states are referred to as "common law" states. You misunderstand federalism a good bit. I mentioned the Erie doctrine in the post which is a COMMON LAW PRECEDENT stating that federal courts have to follow substantive state law on a state claim when jurisdictional issues force them to hear it. Guess what the state claim in issue was, it related to a COMMON LAW claim. 

Furthermore, when scholars discuss the law, they refer to certain states in the Union as being "common law" states. Louisiana's criminal law is considered to be common law, with statutes merely codifying the common law practice. As a result, they have some weird criminal elements (such as intent in sexual assault, liability issues and inheritance) which are pretty unique to the area and considered to be entirely a matter of a state's common law creating standards that aren't the norm. This is not to mention Bangladesh (which has severely departed from the purpose of the judiciary in English common law) as well as Guyana which naturally has some different flavors due to cultural/regional differences. Illinois is considered a common law state in many matters, as are many others. In fact, you are so wrong that there is a thing called the Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code (MPC) which was an effort by the American Legal Institute (ALI) to standardize criminal law because so many states had developed their own brand through common law. The MPC is nonbinding, but instead academic and yet has been incorporated in about half of the states in the U.S. It, itself, is a form of common law even though it's purpose was to create a uniform penal code to counteract all the states and their common law derived versions of various crimes (including, famously, defining intent and attempting to change the rape standard from the archaic English Common Law.

Common law doesn't mean nothing is codified, it means that the law can grow and change outside of legislation as long as that legislation does not particularly address the issue. It's kind of what the Supreme Court does. But you're absolutely wrong, there are territorial pockets of law created because of the common law evolution within that state.

"After a custom has been recognized as of controlling force, in the decision of a court exercising purely legal jurisdiction, it becomes part of "the body of the common law," to the extent of its judicial recognition. According to our view, the "body of the common law," in any territorial jurisdiction, comprises all the decisions of its courts, acting as purely legal tribunals, that apply the general principles and customs of which the spirit of the common law consists."   https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=8071&context=penn_law_review

"It so happens in the case of Pennsylvania-as can be said of the other states originally composing the Union, and of most of those subsequently added-that the local common law is predominantly English; but, because English decisions have been frequently disregarded and will probably continue to be disregarded in many instances, owing to their inapplicability to different conditions prevailing in this country, and because elements from other systems have from time to time been included, we cannot say, strictly speaking, that any of the states follow the English common law." -Weird that a legal scholar would say "local common law" and still call it common law despite it not being "English common law"

"On the contrary, each state's common law, since it is a growing and continuing system, represents the non-statutory rules which the courts of that particular jurisdiction announce and administer in settling legal disputes between litigants"- YES, each state that has a judicial body intended to interpret inherently relies on common law. I don't know how this is difficult to understand

"That the view just voiced is an accurate one [summarized in the preceding quote], appears when we consider what would have happened in any particular state if the English common law had been either definitely rejected or not expressly adopted. The courts in such a contingency would have been obliged, in deciding cases, to apply some law, and, in the absence of statutory declarations on particular points, would necessarily administer the principles which, in their opinion, would effect a just decision under the circumstances, without regard to the source whence such principles might be obtained.The significant fact is that, through the repetition of this process, the rules founded on these principles would gradually form a body of unwritten law which would be strictly common law. Hence, the failure of a particular jurisdiction to adopt an existing system of common law, does not necessarily result in the lack of a common law of its own." This is precisely what we meant when we said "common law" in Westeros. 

"In view of the conflicting manner in which various states of the Union today follow, or refuse to follow, not only English decisions, but also those of other jurisdictions, which may or may not have adopted the English common law, we can safely assert that the common law of no one state is the same as that of any other; different conditions produce different rules." -Again, they discuss common law within a state, or a boundary defined jurisdiction with a full judicial system that acts in accord and below higher, federal courts (unless Erie doctrine applies)

"...we can safely assert that the common law of no one state is the same that of any other; different conditions produce different rules. Nor is the common law in any particular state identical with the common law of England as originally introduced into that state; this system of law, since its initial adoption by the states, has been molded to meet local wants, and we find no uniform body of non-statutory rules, with binding authority throughout the country, on which either local or federal courts base their decisions." -Common law generally meets the needs of the body of people requiring a judicial system, they vary and several versions exist throughout the country. It is this process, not English Common Law, that everybody BUT you was talking about. Common law grows to exist naturally in a process where adjudication and precedent is key. Westeros has this, Dany does this. Why the denial?

You very badly need to read that article. Your argument was basically that we wrote stuff down, therefore there can be no common law. But you entirely misunderstand the purpose of the judicial system in interpreting laws. If you think statutes mean that the law is perfect then you don't understand government. The judicial system has the right and responsibility to use case law (common law) or some sort of policy or moral precedent to rule a law unconstitutional, illegal, not applicable etc. 

In the study of law, you study common law rules a ton. Sometimes you refer to a "majority" or "minority" rule on an issue (meaning it is the rule of a majority of states or a rule in a minority of states.) That is almost always the result of common law evolution specific to a place. Hell, in property law there is an "English" and "American" rule regarding the obligation of a landlord and tenant when a tenant is trying to lawfully gain possession of a property. 

Real quick, go find me any sort of academic text that says that common law has ceased to exist. You don't really think this argument through as codified laws didn't just appear, but the degree of codification has increased rapidly. That doesn't mean the judicial system isn't interpreting laws and impacting law based on a common law usage of jurisprudence, case precedent, mores etc. Not only does common law exist, but AMERICAN common law exists (as I'm sure it does in many countries). As long as the judicial branch (both of states and the federal courts) is meant to be part of a checks and balances system with the mandate to interpret laws, common law is alive and well. Research how much some states vary and tell me that isn't common law evolution.

Please bring some evidence to the party this time and not just make unfounded assertions because, frankly, you lack all credibility in this regard. I keep giving you quotes and reasoning, you keep making assertions. Find me SOME academic article SOMEWHERE that agrees with you, because no one in the field of law does. Oftentimes, law schools study three things: 1) common law, 2) (if different) state law where the school is located, 3) Majority rule (and sometimes, minority or notable exceptions) on the issue of law. That's because omitting any of those would be disregarding a major part of our legal system.

I think you have this false concept that our federal law makes us legally cohesive and thus prevents common law. That isn't anywhere close to the case and shows a real lack of knowledge on the subject

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Demetri

[sigh] It's obvious at this point that you have completely missed the point. You keep going on and on about real-life legal concepts with a bare-bones understanding. Instead of bombing this thread, go ask your teachers if you have properly understood what common law is. I feel like I'm arguing with someone with a mental illness, so I'm going to be the adult here and stop. If you want to get back to the actual point of the thread, I might reply. 

Share this post


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

@Demetri

Oh. My. R'hllor. You don't know when to drop it do you? Dude you are WRONG about what you think is common law, slavery, etc. If you are not a "student" of American slavery history, then you shouldn't have pretended to know about it now should you? (Brazil!) Same goes for the common law thing. You mistook it for something it is clearly not. I'm sure learning Latin phrases in pre-law classes that your friends on TikTok don't understand is really exciting, but infusing them to your commentary doesn't make you sound smarter. If you feel insecure about your lawyering future because you made a mistake like this as a "law student," that's not my problem. 

What are you even fucking talking about? You've asserted I'm wrong but you re incapable of proving it. I've quoted 5 independent sources that support my view. What have you presented besides undeserved arrogance. You don't understand common law, you think the only evil slavery was American Slavery. 40% of slaves in the Americas went to Brazil and they're still divided over lineage and skin color and yet you're only smart enough to think of the American South and, furthermore, suggest that it was some special, previously unheard of manner of brutality. 

Most people understand that mentioning another (perhaps more dominant) example doesn't negate the truth of another. In fact, it does the opposite because my point of comparison was in the absolutely vast network of slavery in Brazil, the numbers which eclipse the U.S., an incredible amount of brutality (some scholars call it the worst) that still creates rifts today. 

My larger issue is that you made up some analogy to the American South not because it was super thought out but because of your own political ideology. Brazil had slavery for longer, imported multiple times as many slaves, abolished slavery later and was undoubtedly exceptionally cruel. And yet, for you, only the American South exist. They were both terrible. I can say that, can you? 

I'm not at all worried about the opinion of someone as ignorant in law as they are in logic. If you think I'll be bad then I think that suggests I'll be pretty good as so far you've shown that the opposite of whatever you say is right.

 

I only mentioned law school because you decided to make ad hominem statements about education. Tell me about your education. Oh, and feel free to "Drop it" yourself. But don't expect me to because you whined about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Demetri

[sigh] It's obvious at this point that you have completely missed the point. You keep going on and on about real-life legal concepts with a bare-bones understanding (and even distorting Brazilian history to make your slaver ancestors in America, what, look better?). Instead of bombing this thread, go ask your teachers if you have properly understood what common law is. (And go learn real history of slavery instead of pretending that native Brazilians were somehow worse than white American slavers.) I feel like I'm arguing with someone with a mental illness, so I'm going to be the adult here and stop. If you want to get back to the actual point of the thread, I might reply. 

 

Share this post


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

@Demetri

[sigh] It's obvious at this point that you have completely missed the point. You keep going on and on about real-life legal concepts with a bare-bones understanding. Instead of bombing this thread, go ask your teachers if you have properly understood what common law is. I feel like I'm arguing with someone with a mental illness, so I'm going to be the adult here and stop. If you want to get back to the actual point of the thread, I might reply. 

You're unbelievable. AGAIN, we're talking about FEMINISM in a MEDIEVAL culture. The thread itself forces anachronistic conceptions.

Secondly, how dense are you? The real life legal concept it derives from isn't some random act of luck or fortune, it is a system that inherently makes sense. If I really have to explain to you how all the lords and kings of Westeros have always relied on common law then you need to excuse yourself.

And I don't need to ask my teachers. I'm the only one, of the two of us, who has any knowledge of the field. The teachers have already taught me this. Furthermore, I have quoted Supreme Court Justices, Supreme Court cases, respected legal scholars etc who all agree with me and my teachers. 

You're just so wrong that I wonder how you get by in life. Oh, and remember that the point of the thread is a "real life" concept much like common law! I do feel bad that you don't understand it, but you can't find anything at all that agrees with you. I've provided reams of supporting evidence while you repeat assertions in your echo chamber while 7 PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOU. And I'm the one with mental illness...Right. You're not the policeman of this thread, and you digressed WAYYY before I did (in fact, your silly posts prompted me to say something). 

Go be aggressively wrong somewhere else. And please, please, please, actually research the shit you say because you sound really uneducated when you can't find a single authoritative source to support you. It's like talking to an especially dim wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have the moral high ground when you try to discredit someone's postings by making ignorant claims about their education while acting condescending (and simultaneously childlike in your understand) of the same issue that led you to ad hominem. Nice try. Read back through, I only started insulting after you did and that's because I actually like to make good arguments and not masturbatory assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 1:18 AM, Demetri said:

I think it is really impressive how little Scalzi relies on physical descriptions and gender. Oftentimes those things become crutches when describing minor characters, but I've literally scanned several books to find a physical description of a character I found attractive and there wasn't one in the entire series.

Hopefully, that's what everyone who is looking at gender issues is hoping: that a character's form/function and that character's agency derives from something rather than just their gender. I kinda boggled at the proposition that NO male authors are capable of writing good female characters so thank you for making a much better list than I did.

My reading is nowhere near as exhaustive as I would wish!

Another good title by William Gibson: The Peripheral. Gibson loves him some alliteratively-named heroines - in this case, Flynne Fisher. And (squeee!) the makers of Westworld are set to make it into a series for Amazon with scriptwriter/EP Scott B. Smith.

Kim Stanley Robinson, while better known for his impeccable grasp of science & technology and less known for his characters :) nevertheless gets it right more than not. I base this on his Science in the Capital omnibus; his Mars trilogy; Antarctica; 2312; Shaman: A Novel of the Ice Age; Aurora; New York 2140; and Red Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/13/2019 at 10:10 AM, Wildling Queen said:

I don't think there's a feminist fan base around Dany alone. That was never it for me. There is, quite definitely, a feminist theoretical lens from which this story can be analyzed that still holds. It's certainly not about "women should be portrayed doing no wrong." That kind of misses a bunch of overarching themes, which in both the books and show have been introduced, about women and power.

The two things that stick out to me most that can be analyzed using feminist theory are: 1) women holding subversive spaces of power. Tradition is not part of it. It's about creating new ways to wield power. Arya and Brienne are perfect examples of this. And 2) you don't create radical change through traditional, patriarchal paradigms. The same system that oppresses people can't be used to then undo that oppression. You tear it all down and start over. That happened last night. No more King's Landing. No more Iron Throne. A whole new way to rule is beginning.

This is such a disturbing comment.

First, every society has a necessary degree of oppression. For example, our freedom to screw around talking about dragons all day is oppressed by the unavoidable necessity that we have to be productive members of our society in order to keep the society running peacefully. In Westeros, peace and security is maintained by forming marriage alliances. Feminists like to point to this and call it oppression. They characterize it as men selling women like cattle in order to support their ideology, which looks something like this:

"Human history can be characterized as men oppressing women."

Wrong. Human history is a story of miraculous cooperation between the sexes to carve out peace and security for the purpose of producing families. Men can't do everything alone and neither can women.

"A strong women doesn't need a man."

Mostly wrong. It's only true from an economic point of view. Human needs are not simply food and water. We die without meaningful relationships.

"A strong woman doesn't want a man."

Entirely wrong. This is the ideology behind the criticisms against Brienne and Jaime's relationship, and it's disgusting. Virtually every woman wants or will want a man and every man wants or will want a woman. That's just a biological fact. The moment it becomes more false than true, our species goes extinct. The proof that it's more true than false is that we aren't extinct.

The notion that Brienne crying about Jaime somehow ruins her as a character is such an absurd dehumanization of Brienne to hear from a group of people who proclaim to be for women. It's an absurd criticism to hear from somebody who has watched or read Brienne's story at all. Brienne's whole backstory is about her undesirability as a large and ugly woman, and her unrequited love for Renly.

It was fan servicey that Jaime had sex with Brienne. The idea that a man will suddenly become attracted to an undesirable woman because he respects her moral fiber or combat prowess is silly fan fiction written for undesirable women. It's yet another occurrence of the feminist pandering that has destroyed this show and Martin's story all the way down to its fundamental premises about human life, power, identity and revenge.

Men select women almost exclusively for fertility, which is why indicators of fertility are the definition of beauty. That's a painful reality that Brienne struggles with, but a reality nonetheless.

In what way have Arya and Brienne created new ways of wielding power? How is knighthood new? How is violence new? Arya and Sansa in the show have REGRESSED as characters compared to their starting point. They've both lost the humanity that they once knew and they've committed atrocities that will haunt and degrade them for the rest of their lives. They still have no interest in paying back the most important thing that was given to them.

Brienne is the only female character I can find that has progressed. She achieved a position of power and respect by resisting the temptations to meet injustice with injustice, by holding up her ideals even when it's difficult. It's pretty revealing that Brienne is the character the ideologues are upset about.

The best gift that Arya and Sansa were ever given is that, once upon a time, a man and a woman managed to cooperatively maintain enough peace and security to have a family. That involved sacrifices of all kinds, including the freedom to marry for love. Multiply that by a million people and thousands of years and you have society. And now you want to stand in the middle of that security, surrounded by the walls that your ancestors built, and call the whole project a corrupt patriarchy? Get a grip!

If you ever did manage to tear down society with this feminist-marxist ideology, you'd be so overwhelmed by fear and suffering that the first thing you would do is find a strong man to help you survive the snakes and storms as you cling to the hope that one day your grandchildren's grandchildren could enjoy the luxury if Wi-Fi again.

This is exactly the mistake Dany makes over and over again. She thinks people would prefer to die free than lives as slaves. Dany tears down the walls of societies that she does not understand. She thinks it's more virtuous to be the slave than the slaver, and she's dead wrong. We're a species of survivors.

Edited by rustythesmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 9:55 AM, rustythesmith said:

This is such a disturbing comment.

First, every society has a necessary degree of oppression. 

"Human history can be characterized as men oppressing women."

"A strong women doesn't need a man."

"A strong woman doesn't want a man."

The idea that a man will suddenly become attracted to an undesirable woman because he respects her moral fiber or combat prowess is silly fan fiction written for undesirable women.


Men select women almost exclusively for fertility, which is why indicators of fertility are the definition of beauty.


In what way have Arya and Brienne created new ways of wielding power? 
 

If you ever did manage to tear down society with this feminist-marxist ideology, you'd be so overwhelmed by fear and suffering that the first thing you would do is find a strong man to help you survive the snakes and storms as you cling to the hope that one day your grandchildren's grandchildren could enjoy the luxury if Wi-Fi again.

3

1. Take the "disturbing comment" up with bell hooks. I didn't invent the theory.

2. Funny how that "necessary degree of oppression" is always experienced by the same groups of people though, huh?

3. Women haven't been oppressed throughout history in ways that men never have? Really?

4. No one "needs" a man. Lesbians could happily school you on this point.

5. I certainly never said that "a strong woman doesn't want a man." I'm a very strong woman and I love my husband very much. That's just "feminists hate men" nonsense you're attributing to my statements.

6. I notice you didn't bring up "undesirable men." Lumping women into two groups according to their sexual desirability is very telling of you.

7. No. Indicators of whiteness and wealth are the definitions of beauty.

8. They bring a feminized view of the world to positions of power and create new images of what power looks like.

9. Stereotyping. How nice of you.

My comments were related more to broader themes. The idea of tearing down the patriarchy isn't just beneficial to women, the same concepts apply to racism, homophobia, transphobia, and class discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Actually, fully fleshed out tyrannical women are in short supply in fiction. I personally find the best characterizations in the novels to be female (Danaerys, Sansa, Cersei). They may not be heralding the emancipation of women but they are fascinating and well written imo...and in the case of Danaerys and especially Cersei, the trials of being a woman in a leadership role are shown to be enormously difficult compared to men...you could even argue both women are more cruel and ferocious than they normally would be because they are dismissed and ridiculed constantly by some of their subjects.

Edited by Uilliam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Uilliam said:

Actually, fully fleshed out tyrannical women are in short supply in fiction. I personally find the best characterizations in the novels to be female (Danaerys, Sansa, Cersei). They may not be heralding the emancipation of women but they are fascinating and well written imo...and in the case of Danaerys and especially Cersei, the trials of being a woman in a leadership role are shown to be enormously difficult compared to men...you could even argue both women are more cruel and ferocious than they normally would be because they are dismissed and ridiculed constantly by some of their subjects.

I fully agree with that. I've always argued that the show has inherently feminist themes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 1:09 PM, Wildling Queen said:

2. Funny how that "necessary degree of oppression" is always experienced by the same groups of people though, huh?

And which groups are those? Women, I suppose? Do you mean to suggest that men were happier about arranged marriages than women? Edmure Tully, Robb Stark, Jaime Lannister and Loras Tyrell might have something to say about that. Do you think mothers weren't arranging marriages for their children to the same degree as fathers?

If Catelyn and Ned's arranged marriage never happened, how do you think Robert's Rebellion would have ended without the Stark and Tully alliance? If Lysa and Jon Arryn's arranged marriage never happened, whose army do you suppose would have rescued Team Stark at Battle of the Bastards?

How about we drop the "corrupt patriarchy" act and acknowledge that, in Westeros and in real world history, arranged marriage was practiced primarily because it was preferable to the bloody alternatives.

Quote

3. Women haven't been oppressed throughout history in ways that men never have? Really?

It depends what you mean. Oppressed by who or what? In the claim that "women are / have been oppressed", you seem to have cast "men" as the perpetrators of that oppression. As if all or even most of the oppressive forces in life are inflicted from one sex to the other sex.

Quote

4. No one "needs" a man. Lesbians could happily school you on this point.

Less than 5% of the population identify as LGBT. The older a woman is, the less likely she is to identify as LGBT. Some of the reason for that is due to generational differences. And some of the reason for it is because, as lesbians get older, they tend to pair with men.

But I can hear you already. You might say, well that's just because society is oppressive! If people weren't so mean to lesbians and gays, or if society was more egalitarian, then more than 5% of people would be happy to be lesbian and gay and to remain that way.

That isn't the case, but let's assume that it is because I think there's a more important point to make that relates to the topic of society as a whole, and necessary oppressive forces.

Imagine that the society becomes a utopia of tolerance and acceptance, which reveals that a larger portion of the population prefers same-sex sex than we thought. Maybe 5% becomes 10% or 50% or 100%,.

As the occurrence of same-sex sex goes up, the birth rate goes down. As the birth rate falls below maintenance, there are not enough people to do the jobs that the deceased are leaving behind. The decrease in productivity destabilizes the society and the society collapses.

So it turns out that there exists some unknown threshold of same-sex sex at which point women do, in fact, need a man. But of course, only if we assume that a future with humans in it is preferable to a future without humans in it.

I can't reply to the rest of your post at the moment but I gave it a glance and I can tell that I am missing out on some points just as brilliant as these others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 3:29 PM, Damon_Tor said:

So I feel like GoT has built up a considerable feminist fanbase, much of that because of Daenerys.

So what happens now?

This episode reinforces the worst stereotype of women as leaders: that they're prone to emotional, irrational decisionmaking with potentially ruinous consequences. The idea that a female President or Prime Minister would order a nuclear strike because she's "on her period" is a very real problem with how we see women as a society, and here we have Daenerys, ordering the Westerosi equivalent of a nuclear strike because she's having an irrational emotional response.

Also, Brienne breaking down sobbing when Jaime left her. WTF was that? Is that the last we see of Brienne? Is that the conclusion of her character arc, getting pumped and dumped by a Chad and weeping about it? REALLY?

OK, for starters, a feminist - in modern understanding of the word - medieval society would have never been able to survive because they would not have had people where they are needed (men and women have different physical and mental characteristics and abilities), and would not have had a necessary birth rate to replace their losses. FFS, modern "progressive" societies do not have high enough birth rate to balance out death rate, unless they are pumped full of Muslim and other immigrants from more traditional cultures (although this might have as much to do with capitalism and materialism in general as it has with progressivism in particular).

Daenerys became a "feminist icon" because she is a "strong woman". Problem is that, historically, a woman had to beat quite long odds to get into position of power unless it was through marriage - rulers were supposed to lead men in the field, so most rulers were male. And precisely because of this requirement for a ruler to also be a battlefield commander (due to nature and origin of medieval feudal societies), rulers were typically male. Even in advanced societies such as Roman (Byzantine) Empire, female ruler was an exception, rather than rule.

And it is precisely Byzantium that showcases what happens with a female ruler in medieval society: she faces opposition. She is not able to lead army in the field, so she always has to watch out for a successful general taking the throne. And that in turn leads to paranoia, and - eventually - cruelty. And that, I think, is precisely what happened to Daenerys - even if it was not portrayed very competently, end result is not that weird.

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

×