Jump to content
Damon_Tor

GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Risto said:

Would any man keep themselves together under such pressure? We have seen Robert cracking because of Lyanna. We have seen Tyrion. It is not about male v female, it is a notion that sometimes humans do crack under pressure. And we have so many examples in the story.

Well, I honestly don't understand why Dany does what she does. And I'm not even sure we are supposed to think she cracked under pressure but rather that her jealousy of Jon's popularity and his unwillingness or inability to love her (or whatever they want to convey in the silent scene on Dragonstone) caused her to decide to kill pretty much everyone who basically has nothing to do with her issues with Jon. That is not cracking or overreacting under pressure, not even paranoia or anything. It is a completely petty act, something we cannot really expect Daenerys to do. Even if she were to turn into a very cruel mistress of Westeros she wouldn't even remotely act from such base motives.

It is a very base and well-known misogynistic cliché that women cannot rule as well as men, cannot make proper rational decisions, are ruled by their petty and infantile emotions, etc. And that's precisely how Daenerys was painted here. It is the worst possible way to portray a female ruler, worthy of the first half of the 20th century - or even the 19th century, for that matter.

13 hours ago, Risto said:

The issue I have with the show is that they so epically failed in presenting Dany's mindset. I do believe that Dany will be pushed to the dark side, first by people choosing Aegon, then by people choosing Jon. And perhaps just like in the show, it will be a tragic thing because she would do all in her power to get people love her, but to no avail. I can see her unleashing Drogon on KL and at one moment being unable to stop making them pay for whatever they will have done to her. Even in show, they tried to show how Dany expressed her pain and anger over everything that has happened to her since she came to Westeros. I feel as she couldn't just accept the surrender, which may have looked to her as an easy way out.

That sounds like a very unlikely scenario for the books insofar as setting and character development is concerned. Yes, Aegon is going to be a pretty annoying thorn in Dany's side, but he isn't going to be the better alternative in the end. Overcoming him is likely going to harden her, also in her view of the Westerosi people - which she might have good reason to detest, especially if having the fight is going to come with a great personal cost.

But I cannot buy the idea that it will be the same with Jon Snow later on. Politically Jon Snow's claim always was a joke, and this entire thing about his claim, him being a better king, etc. is Aegon's plot thrown on Jon (or simply an invention by the show runners), it is not what George has in store for him.

As I laid out in greater detail in that Dany thread here I don't see any chance for Dany to ever end up in a position where she actually craves or desires the love/admiration of these Westerosi people. She isn't her brother. She never knew the place that's hers by right, and she will always have other places she could go - to the Free Cities to build the Freehold of Volantis with herself as the first dragonlord, to Vaes Dothrak to continue her life as godess-empress of the Dothraki, or into the wild with her dragon(s) to live a more humble life (like Nettles or, in part, Queen Rhaena).

Dany is loved by her khalasar, her freedmen, and others. She is going to be worshiped as Azor Ahai - a semi-divine figure - by all of Benerro's followers. 

All the characters involved in this Dany plot - she herself and her actions, her advisors, Jon, etc. - that's all just nonsense and it is out of the question that any of that happens in the way portrayed.

In fact, I also doubt that she is ever going to burn (great problems with the winter weather and the size of the dragons in the books) or sack KL in a brutal fashion (Euron might do that, though, should he ever sit the Iron Throne which is quite likely) but I could see her brutally sacking and burning Lannisport. If Cersei ended up enticing the West against her and ends up forcing her to wage a war there we certainly could see the utter destruction of this city as well as the eradication of House Lannister - both branches - the Duskendale way.

But I don't see that for KL. It is a Targaryen city, build by the Targaryens. Dany will insist on taking it intact. And she should find a way to do so.

 

Share this post


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

Authors should write what they want to write - be true to themselves first and worry about what an audience may think second. If the masses embrace it great, if they don't at least you have been honest. Pandering to what you think an audience wants ruins the integrity of your art.

It depends as what you see yourself. George seems to see himself as an intellectual of some sort, he is pretty well read, he has gotten considerable formal education, he is pretty intelligent, and he has often revealed that he likes to reflect and ponder deep question.

Not to expect an answer to the question why he felt the need to create a shitty fantasy world where his characters actually suffer more than in the real middle ages (at least in certain situations/conditions) and where people actually get away with more shit than they ever did in the real world (something like the Red Wedding, for instance) would actually be an insult. Because if you can create a fantasy world then you are not limited by historical facts or anything. You yourself decide what kind of stereotypes and clichés you want to perpetuate.

Considering that George also usually refers to his writing as 'art' the answer he would like to give is likely not going to be 'I wanted to write genre fiction to earn some money.' Although that's certainly part of the reason why he started to write that back in the 1990s.

11 hours ago, ummester said:

The one thing I will agree on is that it is ridiculous that Valyrians are so fair skinned, considering the part of the world they originated in. I have no issue with most of the drama being set in white Westeros.

I don't have an issue with that, either. I'm a privileged white man from one of the richest countries in the world. But the issue is not that the action takes place in a white Westeros - it is why Westeros had to be all-white. In a fantasy world there is no reason for that, and skin color doesn't exactly affect chivalry or feudalism or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Panos Targaryen said:

You're trolling/parodying, right? 

Definitely not.

6 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

This is the show, not the books. And there absolutely was a rape in Ramsey's story, but the show doesn't have 10,000 characters.

I know that, I just pointed out that Sansa's rape story ruined her story because it made no sense and wasn't her story. And I think I already pointed out why her rape story makes no sense in context of her alleged empowerment arc in the show considering she was already supposed to be a manipulator, etc. in season 4, long before she was married to Ramsay. Which means she is actually factually wrong when she claims being raped by Ramsay made her the person she is now.

6 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

You also seem awfully hung up on "proper rape" and "brutal rape." You do understand that rape is rape and that it's horrible in all circumstances and that it isn't worse when it happens to someone you like versus someone you don't know very well, right?

I would have preferred to see some man getting brutally raped, yes, because it is rather obvious that this is a kind of taboo that is rarely, if at all, actually depicted in either books or television. We are accustomed to see women as victims of abuse and rape but not men. But that happens, too, and it can also be material for great drama.

I agree that rape is always horrible, but I'd say that it is not always equally horrible depending on what exactly is done by whom and how the individual is processing the experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

With respect for with your awful experiences, I think you’ve misjudged what happened to Cersi. And I legitimately don’t get the use of #Metoo here. Are you mocking it? Genuinely curious here.

No, but you seem to be by selecting only part of the scene then discounting completely where she wraps her legs around him, and actively participates.

10 hours ago, Sadras said:

I do not for one moment, believe this is a rape as I feel the relationship between Cersei and Jaimie is quite a lot more complicated than a clinical look at this isolated sex scene. Furthermore I believe the character of Cersei to be quite strong so if she really wanted Jaimie to stop she would be forceful enough to push through his sexual advances. She does not. She puts up an initial struggle for impropriety sake but gave up fairly quickly to her base desires.

They have a tumultuous history and what you are doing here is very reductive. Instead of acknowledging their history along with the entire scene where she eventually gives in to lust, you stop your analysis at the point where she resists and he continues. That is short-sighted, reflects bias which allows only for disingenuous conversation.

Rape is a pretty horrible act. Get your facts straight.    

This.

 

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah when she says no and starts to resist and he still proceeds to penetrate her it becomes rape.

He doesn't come close to that until after she's actively kissing him and pulling him toward her with her hand on the back of his neck, after he's ripped her clothing, just like in the book.

Do you think it's rape in the book?

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Your rationale for why it’s not rape is a) they have a complicated relationship and b) she a woman of average physical strength would’ve pushed off the the fairly strong man if she truly didn’t want the sex.

She doesn't have to physically shove him off her, she could resist by not participating, and lying dormant. Instead she becomes an active encourager. She wraps her legs around him. She kisses him, and pulls him toward her. How can you miss that part? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or does it seem odd how much attention and discussion the few rape scenes get....but noone cares that this story has thousands of men without genitals? Literally have never heard anyone complain of this, but yet a rape scene where you literally see nothing is the end of hte world. thousands of genitaless guys....eh who cares they are men and dont matter lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

He doesn't come close to that until after she's actively kissing him and pulling him toward her with her hand on the back of his neck, after he's ripped her clothing, just like in the book.

Yes, she kisses him back momentarily after her first no.  She even plays along until their pressed against the ground. Then she tells him she doesn’t want to have sex. She doesn’t follow this up with a kiss or a tender touch. She follows it up with a shove and proceeds to cry for him stop. He doesn’t.

3 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

She doesn't have to physically shove him off her, she could resist by not participating, and lying dormant. Instead she becomes an active encourager. She wraps her legs around him. She kisses him, and pulls him toward her. How can you miss that part?

Oh I fully acknowledge that part. But I also don’t think that at no point after those actions that it’s impossible for her to rescind her consent.

3 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

This

You actually think her not fighting enough and the fact she had a complicated relationship with Jamie are good reasons for why this is not rape?  Like, what in particular in Jamie and Cersi’s relationship, makes what happened in this scene not rape?

3 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

No, but you seem to be by selecting only part of the scene then discounting completely where she wraps her legs around him, and actively participates.

I’m simply counting the part where she stops being a willing participant altogether. I discount this idea of once a person commits certain actions with someone they’re insistence of not wanting sex could be ignored by the person(s) they did the certain actions with without it being assault. It could be rescinded at any point. A couple could be be having full on consensual sex. If one of them says they no longer want to do it, and tries move way only to be physically restrained  have their pleas ignored partner it becomes rape.

Also are you saying no, to the question of  you mocking the #Metoo movement or just no to my statement that you’ve misjudged the scene? I just don’t get the reason you placed it where you did given you’ve lamented you don’t see what happened to Cersi as rape.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, ummester said:

Authors should write what they want to write - be true to themselves first and worry about what an audience may think second. If the masses embrace it great, if they don't at least you have been honest. Pandering to what you think an audience wants ruins the integrity of your art.

 

Yeah integrity doesn’t put food on the table man. I would wager few authors, even really good ones, put art above being able to getting enough money to live comfortably. I actually remember one author who I enjoyed flat-out admitting he wrote the 4th book in his series because he needed money. I appreciated he was honesty quite frankly.  I’m not going to chastise a an author for staying totally true to his or her vision, and only write what they truly to believe to be great readers be damned. But I also won’t  chastise the authors who are less noble than that.

 

17 hours ago, ummester said:

Biology always matters in realistic characterization of humans. Go write an ancient world fantasy where all you male characters get pregnant and your female characters shoot semen and see just how many people take it seriously. If readers are reading fantasy to escape reality entirely, or writers using it to avoid reality, they are both missing the point. It is meant to mirror reality and make points about reality. As self centered as it is, the human condition is basically the only thing worth writing or reading about for most humans.

Are you arguing all or most of the racial/sexist  cliches we see in fantasy are fine because they have a biological basis?

17 hours ago, ummester said:

Offence is a valid emotion, that writers can exploit for drama and readers can experience for growth. Shying away from being offended makes people far less mentally resilient. I do not want to read or watch things that do not offend me or challenge my conception of the world. Joffey was the best thing in the first part of GoTs. I loved being offended by him - I hated his pathetic cowardly evil little head and could not wait to see it deceased - that was a good thing because it hooked me big time.

Or writers could use it as a crutch to appear “edgey” or “deep” without being either. Something being “offensive” does not in itself mean it’s particularly thought provoking. 

17 hours ago, ummester said:

.The one thing I will agree on is that it is ridiculous that Valyrians are so fair skinned, considering the part of the world they originated in. I have no issue with most of the drama being set in white Westeros.

Meh, I’d excuse it. GRRM seems to have wanted to model them after Tolkien elves, and their unusually pale skin given their homeland in my opinion helps highlight a sense of alieness.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't have an issue with that, either. I'm a privileged white man from one of the richest countries in the world. But the issue is not that the action takes place in a white Westeros - it is why Westeros had to be all-white. In a fantasy world there is no reason for that, and skin color doesn't exactly affect chivalry or feudalism or anythi

Much of Westeroes is far colder than that of the free cities. Winter is firmly established as a bigger problem they’re than in the east generally. Given the main conflict centering a war in winter, it’s perfectly reasonable given the setting that has been established that most of it’s occupants to have whiter skin than most in the East.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

But I cannot buy the idea that it will be the same with Jon Snow later on. Politically Jon Snow's claim always was a joke, and this entire thing about his claim, him being a better king, etc. is Aegon's plot thrown on Jon (or simply an invention by the show runners), it is not what George has in store for him.

I would agree. We were given  basically the same tale that Jon and Aegon has multiple times in FaB. “Long lost secret prince/favored son suddenly appears after his father’s death suddenly appears” They’re always concluded to be false when they fail to get the recognition of an established member(s) of House Targaryen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I would agree. We were given  basically the same tale that Jon and Aegon has multiple times in FaB. “Long lost secret prince/favored son suddenly appears after his father’s death suddenly appears” They’re always concluded to be false when they fail to get the recognition of an established member(s) of House Targaryen. 

It is not just that, it is also that Jon's character was likely even more butchered than Dany's in the show. We just don't discuss that all that much because he is basically just some vapid dude without character, desires, personality, or goals. The only exceptional thing about him is that he ignored his own death - but that's a plot point they evade at all cost.

I mean, not even I would ever suggest or believe the idea that Jon could merely be Dany's good little puppy. Dany never wanted yes-man around her, especially not in her lovers. If Jon were to tell her the entire day that she is his divine queen she would find him even less intriguing than Quentyn Martell.

And the whole jealousy and conspiracy plot is just utterly ridiculous. There is a reason why George decided to make Rhaenyra the half-sister of Aegon II who was not married to him - because people in a romantic relationship/marriage would actually form a power bloc against all plotters rather than falling prey to their ambitions. There wouldn't have been a Dance of the Dragons if Rhaenyra and Aegon II had married each other, and there is not going to be tension between Jon and Dany if they actually have an affair, or even end up being married.

But there will be a Second Dance of the Dragons because Aegon did not search out Dany to marry her.

It is also quite clear that Dany being pissed about Aegon and resenting that he stole her big role as Targaryen savior of Westeros is making it essentially impossible that the subsequent/parallel Jon-Dany story could be, for the most part, the same story. That would be just recycling the same plot again. We also won't get another Red Wedding, and nobody is going to burn another fleet on the Blackwater using wildfire.

The show wanted to make the finale about 'Mad Dany burning KL'. And they basically destroyed the stories of all characters (including Dany herself) to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 3:04 AM, Wildling Queen said:

I think as far as a feminist trope, Dany and Cersei ended up exactly the way they should have. They were too married to traditional notions of power and how it should be structured to be feminism heroines. Sansa, Arya, and Brienne all have power but in completely different ways from the traditional forms. That, to me, is feminism.

Surely, "too married to traditional notions of power" describes Sansa more than anyone? She gains her position through marriage/inheritance and being granted it by her more powerful male relatives. She doesn't challenge the power structure, nor does she do anything to change it.

Brienne is basically in the same boat as Dany and Cersei, trying to gain power within the system by taking up a traditionally masculine role. I had once thought Dany would be the one to break out of this, being the revolutionary figure she was set up to be, but her arc's kinda gone astray (in the show, anyway).

I guess that leaves Arya, who rejects Ladyship and makes her own path. She's barely a character now, though. We'll see what happens to her in the next ep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah integrity doesn’t put food on the table man. I would wager few authors, even really good ones, put art above being able to getting enough money to live comfortably. I actually remember one author who I enjoyed flat-out admitting he wrote the 4th book in his series because he needed money. I appreciated he was honesty quite frankly.  I’m not going to chastise a an author for staying totally true to his or her vision, and only write what they truly to believe to be great readers be damned. But I also won’t  chastise the authors who are less noble than that.

 

Get a second job, or treat writing as the second job until it does put food on the table. There are ways to work around the problem without selling yourself out to the financial system.

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Are you arguing all or most of the racial/sexist  cliches we see in fantasy are fine because they have a biological basis?

Not sure - I don't know what you term is a cliche and what isn't - and I am pretty sure that is different for everyone. Write what you need to write to tell your story. If you need a pretty princess to be saved by a muscular knight, have the pretty princess saved by the muscular knight. If you read it back and worry it's too cliche, change it, if not, leave it. If no one is writing it anymore because they are afraid it is too cliche, does that stop it being cliche anyway?

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Or writers could use it as a crutch to appear “edgey” or “deep” without being either. Something being “offensive” does not in itself mean it’s particularly thought provoking. 

Yea, they could - and you can try and judge why they did but you will never really know their true intentions unless you meet them and they tell you, right? All I really meant was that people should not be offended by things like cliches -  and I think it is wrong to be offended by ideas that do not fit with your worldview.

If a book contains a gratuitous underage human vs demonic animal rape scene  (so its basically a Japanese comic :D ) that you feel adds nothing to the plot, fine be offended. You don't have to like it, I probably wouldn't either - but someone somewhere might. But if a book contains an idea like say, 'some women like being the pretty princess that a muscular knight can rescue and end their story happily rescued and making babies with the muscular knight' I don't think it is reasonable to be offended by that just because it is not feminist enough, or something.

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, I’d excuse it. GRRM seems to have wanted to model them after Tolkien elves, and their unusually pale skin given their homeland in my opinion helps highlight a sense of alieness.

 

I always thought the Others were more like the elves of GRRMs universe and the Children like the Hobbits - they had just already retired into the West (or north as the case may be).

Dany should have looked like Kida from Disney's Atlantis - she almost does anyway, just give her dark skin. Make the Atlanteans (sorry Valyrians) like ancient Egyptians (bright eyes and hair with dark skin) sufficiently alien to modern human looks and still fitting for their region of the world. Basic anthropology matters for realistic characterization, also.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

Theories do shift over time, but in a lot of cases, the things pointed out in our real society were always problematic. They just weren't problematic for some of us, personally, so we didn't think about it.

I do recall earlier that you posted 'For whom is there social harmony right now?'

I wonder, was there more or less social harmony before all of these problematic things were pointed out? I wonder if addressing the question of whether or not social progressivism and multiculturalism destabilizes society is actually a very important topic to explore in fantastic writing?

Sorry I did not address the rest of your points, I honestly don't know enough about feminist theory and those kind of things to comment.

I think it is really simple - a fair society will value the voice of its members in front of any other society and provide equal opportunity for them. Of course people will not get everything they want, or even pan out with total equality - because people (within a given society) are never fully equal and societies (within a broader collection, such as an Empire, or a globe or whatever) are never equal to each other.

Variety is the spice of life - men and women are different, Muslims and Christians are different and so on. Sometimes that leads to conflict, but even when it does we evolve. If you take variety and conflict away for the sake of some impossible equality, we stop evolving.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You actually think her not fighting enough and the fact she had a complicated relationship with Jamie are good reasons for why this is not rape? Like, what in particular in Jamie and Cersi’s relationship, makes what happened in this scene not rape?

I’m simply counting the part where she stops being a willing participant altogether. I discount this idea of once a person commits certain actions with someone they’re insistence of not wanting sex could be ignored by the person(s) they did the certain actions with without it being assault. It could be rescinded at any point. A couple could be be having full on consensual sex. If one of them says they no longer want to do it, and tries move way only to be physically restrained  have their pleas ignored partner it becomes rape.

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. 

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!

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.

Fourth, RAPE is abhorrent behaviour. To equate this scene with RAPE is a huge disservice to actual victims of RAPE. It is like the online's use of the word Nazi for some conservatives or people they differ with. Why don't you ask a person who has actually suffered under Nazism if it is ok to use that word for people aren't actually Nazi's. 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?

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?

 

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

Edited by Sadras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ummester said:

I do recall earlier that you posted 'For whom is there social harmony right now?'

I wonder, was there more or less social harmony before all of these problematic things were pointed out? I wonder if addressing the question of whether or not social progressivism and multiculturalism destabilizes society is actually a very important topic to explore in fantastic writing?

Sorry I did not address the rest of your points, I honestly don't know enough about feminist theory and those kind of things to comment.

I think it is really simple - a fair society will value the voice of its members in front of any other society and provide equal opportunity for them. Of course people will not get everything they want, or even pan out with total equality - because people (within a given society) are never fully equal and societies (within a broader collection, such as an Empire, or a globe or whatever) are never equal to each other.

Variety is the spice of life - men and women are different, Muslims and Christians are different and so on. Sometimes that leads to conflict, but even when it does we evolve. If you take variety and conflict away for the sake of some impossible equality, we stop evolving.

I appreciate your response and agree wholeheartedly for the most part. Variety is a wonderful thing, diversity is what makes humanity so complex and wonderful. There will always be conflict, but that conflict should be over ideology. When it becomes a question of which lives have value and which don't, that's a fight, as it should be. And we should always strive for equality, even if it's an impossible dream, we can always work to make things better.

As for social harmony, I can't agree that we should be quiet and accept inequality in the name of keeping the peace. Where do we draw that line? As for "before all of these problematic things were pointed out,"  BEFORE people became aware of feminism was more than 100 years ago. And for whom was there "social harmony" then? BEFORE movements toward ending racial inequality, at least in this country, there was slavery. For whom was there "social harmony" then?

Edited by Wildling Queen

Share this post


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

Surely, "too married to traditional notions of power" describes Sansa more than anyone? She gains her position through marriage/inheritance and being granted it by her more powerful male relatives. She doesn't challenge the power structure, nor does she do anything to change it.

Brienne is basically in the same boat as Dany and Cersei, trying to gain power within the system by taking up a traditionally masculine role. I had once thought Dany would be the one to break out of this, being the revolutionary figure she was set up to be, but her arc's kinda gone astray (in the show, anyway).

I guess that leaves Arya, who rejects Ladyship and makes her own path. She's barely a character now, though. We'll see what happens to her in the next ep.

I hear what you're saying. I'd also say that the people chose Jon, knowing who his family was, and their rule wasn't imposed on the people. Jon left Sansa in charge and, unlike a lot of the rulers we've seen on the show, she's speaking for the people, not herself and her family's interests. Her family would be served better by accepting Dany's rule and partnering with her, but Sansa knows that's not what the people want.

Breaking a system down to its parts and reforming each individually is not simply reinforcing the original power structure. Knighthood was part of that structure, but Brienne is reforming it in new ways. Arya is reforming the notions of what it means to be a woman born into a noble family. All of this is pretty feminist, actually. :)

 

Share this post


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

Is it just me or does it seem odd how much attention and discussion the few rape scenes get....but noone cares that this story has thousands of men without genitals? Literally have never heard anyone complain of this, but yet a rape scene where you literally see nothing is the end of hte world. thousands of genitaless guys....eh who cares they are men and dont matter lol.

Thank you thank you and thank you again. I've been arguing since the show first started that there is something inherently sexual about using violence against men in this way and how it's equally a form of sexual violence as rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I would have preferred to see some man getting brutally raped.

I agree that rape is always horrible, but I'd say that it is not always equally horrible depending on what exactly is done by whom and how the individual is processing the experience.

 

Rape is equally as bad when it happens to men, and you've seen literally thousands of men who had their penises lopped off. 

And just to be perfectly clear: there is no bad rape and "meh, kind of bad" rape. Trauma has no qualifiers. When a person is raped, that is the worst thing in their frame of reference. They have no other frame of reference for which to say, "well, this wasn't so bad compared to that other rape" unless they've been raped more than once and then the second is equally as traumatizing because of the first one. Do you understand?

Share this post


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

As for social harmony, I can't agree that we should be quiet and accept inequality in the name of keeping the peace. Where do we draw that line?

It depends on how change occurs, I think (and believe me, this is very important to what I am currently writing about - finding the middle ground between two deliberately contradictory POVs over cultural values is not easy). Change must occur naturally for it to be sustainable - if it is forced by means that have their own agendas (as is currently happening in the West where globalist corporations are changing Western interaction, working conditions and cultural values) then it will end badly. If it flows naturally, out of human empathy for those that are dispossessed or put down, within ones own fairly homologous culture, then it will likely succeed.

Most men in the West have absolutely no issue with giving women a fair go. I come from the land down under and we all reckon our Shelia's can rock with the best of our dudes if they need to - but throw in a culture like Islam, where they have differing views on how women should be treated and tell us to respect their values equally - and we all get fucked up. Not that I deny Muslims the right to evolve socially on their own terms - bit mixing the three things just doesn't work. And you know what is going to snap? Western masculinity. And you know what hits back hardest? Western masculinity. I am not saying this as any kind of threat, or misogynistic place of man power - I am saying it from looking at cultural evolution over the last few thousand years. The world does not realise the shit storm it is creating - or perhaps those with money in their pockets know exactly what they are doing, I dunno - but it genuinely scares me how close to the line it is getting and how I am going to approach the looming fight. I have two physically and mentally powerful sons - how do I lead them through what is coming safely for all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FartNapkin said:

Is it just me or does it seem odd how much attention and discussion the few rape scenes get....but noone cares that this story has thousands of men without genitals? Literally have never heard anyone complain of this, but yet a rape scene where you literally see nothing is the end of hte world. thousands of genitaless guys....eh who cares they are men and dont matter lol.

To be fair to Dany, she broke that ongoing, brutal system of enslavement, mutilation and murderous training when she took Astapor, which is why I often struggle to find much sympathy for the plight of the Good Masters of the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wildling Queen said:

Rape is equally as bad when it happens to men, and you've seen literally thousands of men who had their penises lopped off. 

I guess that depends what kind of movies you watch. I have not seen that. But I consider the way female rape is portrayed in fiction in general to be remarkably different than male rape.

1 hour ago, Wildling Queen said:

And just to be perfectly clear: there is no bad rape and "meh, kind of bad" rape. Trauma has no qualifiers. When a person is raped, that is the worst thing in their frame of reference. They have no other frame of reference for which to say, "well, this wasn't so bad compared to that other rape" unless they've been raped more than once and then the second is equally as traumatizing because of the first one. Do you understand?

I'd think that depends how the people going through the experience frame it, no? Some people deal with pain and trauma differently than others or focus on different aspects, consider things worse or not as bad as others. But I think I get what you mean. Not sure if that's an accurate comparison, but I had to do multiple cycles of chemotherapy once and although you know the bad aspects of it you cannot really *prepare* or *grow accustomed to* that kind of thing the way you can accustom yourself to the pain from a broken leg or finger.

But in general I was here most talking about the depiction of rape in fiction, not how people actually deal with it. There is a huge difference between how rape survivors deal and cope with what happened to them and how rape is portrayed in fiction.

What you can draw from Dany/Sansa in the show is basically that being raped (a couple of times) by a husband you have been forced to marry is good for your character development and actually strengthens you. The way Sophie phrases the experience implies that a good and proper rape is necessary to become a bad ass political schemer like she is now. And that's just wrong on so many levels - and there is, of course, a reason why George has a completely different plot for his Sansa.

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

×