Jump to content
Damon_Tor

GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

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.

On the show, you saw it happen to Theon. You've heard the description of it happening to thousands of the Unsullied, as well as the man in your profile pic.

And trauma is trauma. Whether a person acknowledges the effects of trauma or not, it's trauma. And it has an effect. During some of the trainings I attended on the neurobiology of trauma, they showed us how it actually affects the shape and appearance of the brain.

I don't think that's how Sansa framed the conversation at all. She said exactly what countless survivors, myself included, have said. It happened. It was horrible. It did not break me and I will take my own power back from the people who did those things to me. I am who I am because of all the good and bad things that have happened, and I'm moving forward now.

Share this post


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

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.

And having another job means less time to actually work on whatever novel you want to produce. And the job still may not mean a comfortable living. Honestly, I’m not going to expect someone to suffer struggling to make ends meet for “artistic integrity” and expect them to put that as their chief concern rather than you know not being broke. They are free to do that. More power to them, it’s not my life, who am I to judge. But if they don’t well that’s not in it of itself some big crime. Because it’d be pretentious as hell. 

13 hours ago, ummester said:
20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

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?

Um no. You don’t need to be a genius to figure not every cliche presented concerning race, sex or sexuality is just writers being biological realistic.  You probably don’t need to make all your gay characters basically every stereotype associated with them-and only have them as that. Odds are the use of the cliches probably doesn’t enhance the story. And too be clear this depiction of only being this way isn’t really rare. But the point is not every racist/sexist/ cliche could be excused by virtue of following “biology”. And being mindful of not generalizing an entire group 

13 hours ago, ummester said:

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.

Oh no, I’m definitely offended at the idea of it being ok to kill Jews or that other races are inferior. These ideas are reprehensible and should draw offense by good people when they’re touted. Seriously, you might as well say it’s wrong for protesters to demonstrate against the KKK when those monsters do a march. And if a film features clearly very pro-fascist elements, I’m going to criticize it for its presentation and explain how it’s just that. I do not to have literally talked with any of the people who made “A birth of a nation”  to recognize it’s racist as hell and not pretend that maybe there’s something I missed that makes what the film did less offensive. That I need to hear the stated intention from the creators own lips before condemning it.  Please, don’t tell me you’d tell blacks, back when the movie came out that they were once again depicted in media as murdering raping savages.

13 hours ago, ummester said:

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.

No, it would be reasonable to offended if a story basically presented this messages “All women want is a strong man” or “all gay men are girly” “all non-Christians are evil” 

And, I criticize these aspects in a person’s writing more heavily than just mindless being presented in it. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

Um no. You don’t need to be a genius to figure not every cliche presented concerning race, sex or sexuality is just writers being biological realistic.  You probably don’t need to make all your gay characters basically every stereotype associated with them-and only have them as that. Odds are the use of the cliches probably doesn’t enhance the story. And too be clear this depiction of only being this way isn’t really rare. But the point is not every racist/sexist/ cliche could be excused by virtue of following “biology”. And being mindful of not generalizing an entire group 

Unless it is relevant to the plot, you don't even need to include a characters sexual preference. Say you are writing about an ancient world military campaign and the types of masculine strength that are needed to survive under in different duress situations - why even have a gay character? Shit, ancient Roman's used sodomy as a way of portraying masculine strength, how would a gay character fit into that mix? They may not be needed in the setting.

One can find the forced inclusion of sexual variation as offensive as others can find cliches of it. Simple solution, if the story does not need it, leave it out. Cliches should possibly be used cautiously but then so should inclusion - but you should never break the rules of real world biology unless there is an invented magical or scientific reason for it in the narrative.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh no, I’m definitely offended at the idea of it being ok to kill Jews or that other races are inferior. These ideas are reprehensible and should draw offense by good people when they’re touted. Seriously, you might as well say it’s wrong for protesters to demonstrate against the KKK when those monsters do a march. And if a film features clearly very pro-fascist elements, I’m going to criticize it for its presentation and explain how it’s just that. I do not to have literally talked with any of the people who made “A birth of a nation”  to recognize it’s racist as hell and not pretend that maybe there’s something I missed that makes what the film did less offensive. That I need to hear the stated intention from the creators own lips before condemning it.  Please, don’t tell me you’d tell blacks, back when the movie came out that they were once again depicted in media as murdering raping savages.

It's easy to sit here with our modern lenses and judge the actions of people in the past offensive, isn't it. Especially when we never lived their lives or walked in their shoes. I am not going to defend the KKK or Nazism but nor am I going to jump up and down about the evils of it and signal to the world how aggrieved I am about something that happened well before my time and that has no bearing on how I need to live my life now. I had two grandfathers that fought in WW2 - they both hated the Japs more than the Gerrys because they said the Japs were more cruel - seeing as they were there, fighting and killing these people, I will take their recollection far more seriously than any who thinks they have anything meaningful to add on the internet.

As for Americas historical and current issues with its African population, why they hell is that anyone but America's issue? Why does the rest of the world need to be reminded of it on a regular basis? It is not a global problem and does not need to be projected outside of the country it is relevant to at all.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GoT and feminism?

D&D made it so Daenerys found the time to dislike Sansa in the latest episode.

She flipped cause Jon wouldn't love her enough (?).

I mean, come on throw in that she burned the city because there was her time of the month and we have the complete picture of how D&D think the female mind works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their biggest mistake was turning Dany into this female power fantasy. The pandering in the show was so big that they somehow forgot to include the arc of her getting more and more ruthless, which anyone who reads the book knows is the main part of her character. Instead they portrayed even her most awful acts as heroic, as if somehow she couldn't be wrong about anything.

Now every idiotic woman on twitter will spent one month bitching about how this was some patriarchal conspiracy to ruin a "good female character", because they're too damn stupid to look at anything critically or understand that this is an adaptation of a much more complicated book series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 8:20 PM, 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.

This.

 

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?

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? 

Don't forget this was WRITTEN BY A MAN WHO DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT WOMEN AND RAPE -- at least at the time he wrote it back then before #MeToo.  I know, because I heard him talk about such matters and interact with me on social media on these matters back then.

Share this post


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

Unless it is relevant to the plot, you don't even need to include a characters sexuality. Say you are writing about an ancient world military - why even have a gay character?

Why would the story being about ancient world military make such a character more intolerable? Men who only really like having sex with men  have served in the military. And Not all cultures throughout time were even so bigoted for it’d to be unrealistic to have it depicted. China, Persia, Rome, are just some examples of countries who for the most of their history didn’t really have a stigma on this.  Like a story set in athentes fighting their neighbors could probably showcase a romantic relationship between a man and man just as validly as showcasing a romantic relationship between man and woman. 

10 hours ago, ummester said:

They would not be needed in that setting. One can find the forced inclusion of sexual variation as offensive as others can find cliches of it. Simple solution, if the story does not need it, leave it out.

“Need it” lol? There’s was no “need” for anything  to ever be depicted for any story. Authors put in what they think should go in.  Or simply feel like. If there is a gay character in this someone offended is wrong. Because they’re working off the basis the entirety of human history had the same exact views on sexuality.  And I find most complaining about “forced inclusion” to just be inclusion. I know you’d like it if the amount of inclusion was offensive to you but It shouldn’t be controversial for an action movie to have gay protagonist anymore than the thousands of actions that firmly establish the main character’s heterosexuality. Or for a show to feature a gay couple when they could easily have a straight couple. 

Including members from groups is not wrong.  The framing of them is what should be judged.

Cliches should possibly be used cautiously but then so should inclusion - but you should never break the rules of real world biology unless there is an invented magical or scientific reason for it in the narrative.

Another odd reference to biology. Not all cliches could be explained away with just following the “rules of real biology”

10 hours ago, ummester said:

It's easy to sit here with our modern lenses and judge the actions of people in the past offensive, isn't it. 

Yeah, I’m not going to pretend the people who made BoN where attempting to do anything but create racist propaganda  which helped glorify a terrorist organization that murdered thousands or show it any degree of personal tolerance. If you don’t think blacks at the time should have felt offended in response to the movie advocating them being killed off because of they did ok. But they were. A lot. Being offended at this is not something only some modern thing. It’s just the people offended we’re people who were seen as subhuman. I don’t need a “modern” perspective to see why plenty of blacks where offended with the story basically saying they’re evil, raping savages who deserve to be exterminated. Next, you might go “geez I shouldn’t judge Hitler, I haven’t lived in his shoes” But nor did I judge the actions a century ago. But also the monsters who are doing the same thing in 2019

 I had two grandfathers that fought in WW2 - they both hated the Japs more than the Gerrys because they said the Japs were more cruel - seeing as they were there, fighting and killing these people, I will take their recollection far more seriously than any who thinks they have anything meaningful to add on the internet.

And? Are you now arguing that you wouldn’t rjudge the people advocating genocide, and ethnic cleansing harshly  because they might have a good reason fo do just that? 

10 hours ago, ummester said:

Especially when we never lived their lives or walked in their shoes. I am not going to defend the KKK or Nazism but nor am I going to jump up and down about the evils of it and signal to the world how aggrieved I am about something that happened well before me time and that had no bearing on how I need to live my life. 

No, I won’t not judge white supremachists people  who thinks I as a black man and my black family member are am inferior, deserve to be killed, or cast out of my own country because they want it to be all white, as bad people. And dude, the KKK  neo-nazis, other types of white supremachists are still around and still pressing that people get expunged from “their” land and actively pushing their agendas, they’re marching and I’m not going to wag my finger at those who have the audacity to protest the guys advocating genocide and ethnic cleansing when said advocates go out to March and try to push their message getting rid of all non-whites.

10 hours ago, ummester said:

As for Americas historical and current issues with its African population, why they hell is that anyone but America's issue? Why does the rest of the world need to be reminded of it on a regular basis? It is not a global problem and does not need to be projected outside of the country it is relevant to at all.

I could have pointed out any other current despicable organization touting any loathsome ideology in the world. It could have been in the the British, it could have been a group in France. In my point would basically be the same. I only chose the KKK because they were the first example that came to mind. It’s ludicrous to act it’s wrong to be offended by any ideas-even ideas of genocide, ethnic cleansing or the subjugation of others. 

When you hear someone seriously go an tirade about how Hitler was right about the Jews, there shouldn’t any question to you that the guy is an awful person.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

Don't forget this was WRITTEN BY A MAN WHO DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT WOMEN AND RAPE -- at least at the time he wrote it back then before #MeToo.  I know, because I heard him talk about such matters and interact with me on social media on these matters back then.

I honestly think you may have gotten your timeline mixed up. I joined this site relatively soon after the #Metoo started. I think I have an idea what you’re talking about but I don’t think (from what I could recall) what I said wasn’t warranting such a visceral reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

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. :)

 

The problem is, it wasn't 'the people' who chose Jon - it was the feudal lords. The show has made it so all the smallfolk are ungrateful xenophobes, too, so yes, Sansa speaks for them... but only by default. I disagree that she would personally benefit from kneeling to Dany, since an independent North grants her more power. So it isn't at all clear that she would still represent them in a situation where she has a different opinion. She has the power to not listen their voices at all. Furthermore, the show framed her antagonism and distrust towards Dany as petty and catty - bleh.

I don't know if I consider Brienne's knighthood as reforming anything. After all, there have always been individual women allowed into traditionally male spaces, and it almost never translates to acceptance of all women into those spaces. If Brienne uses her position to grant other women knighthood - and, most importantly, if her society accepts it - that would be a great feminist feat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Panos Targaryen said:

Why do you people do this to this forum?

Do what and who exactly are you talking about? Are you referring to those who are expressing viewpoints you find wrong on a topic. If so I must say, the forum isn’t just open to those who agree with you. If not I’m struggling to see who you could mean.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

Do what and who exactly are you talking about? Are you referring to those who are expressing viewpoints you find wrong on a topic. If so I must say, the forum isn’t just open to those who agree with you. If not I’m struggling to see who you could mean.

And I would agree with you, if those on the other side of the argument were allowed to make their points on this forum with the same vigour as you guys do. If, say, for every thread calling GRRM a racist and a sexist, ASOIAF a fantasy series "made for white men" (as if that is a bad thing by default), "problematic" when it comes to its depiction of women, etc., there was a thread harshly calling out people for trying to inject their radical leftist identity politics into a discourse about a freaking fantasy series which was never meant to have anything to do with their neo-Marxist worldview, nor is it morally supposed to. I don't want to break any forum rules and talk about things I shouldn't talk about, but let's just say this isn't the case. 

Edited by Panos Targaryen

Share this post


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

Don't forget this was WRITTEN BY A MAN WHO DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT WOMEN AND RAPE -- at least at the time he wrote it back then before #MeToo.  I know, because I heard him talk about such matters and interact with me on social media on these matters back then.

Wouldn't a female author be just as ignorant about the male experience? Not just rape, generally writing about the psychological complexities that a male human encounters in the journey of life. I highly doubt any of you would ever question Anne McCaffrey's (author of Dragonriders of Pern) right to write male characters despite not being a man, or J.K Rowling writing a story with a male protagonist. 

Edited by Panos Targaryen

Share this post


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

Why would the story being about ancient world military make such a character more intolerable? Men who only really like having sex with men  have served in the military. And Not all cultures throughout time were even so bigoted for it’d to be unrealistic to have it depicted. China, Persia, Rome, are just some examples of countries who for the most of their history didn’t really have a stigma on this.  Like a story set in athentes fighting their neighbors could probably showcase a romantic relationship between a man and man just as validly as showcasing a romantic relationship between man and woman. 

What percent of the human (or even animal) populations is gay? 5 or something like that? I honestly don't know exactly but its not high. Is there more chance that your athletes, soldiers, wizards, orcs - whatever you are writing about that you are trying to relate for a modern human audience - be gay or hetro? I don't care if a story has a gay character in, honestly does not bother me either way - the Renly/Loras element of GoTs was interesting enough and added to the overall narrative - but an author should not go out of their way to add a gay character in, is all I am saying. If a seduction scene or something similar is needed between two characters of the same sex, make em gay because it ads to the story. Just don't try and write a story around sexually diverse characters, purely to exhibit diversity - Jeez, its not hard to work out?

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

“Need it” lol? There’s was no “need” for anything  to ever be depicted for any story. Authors put in what they think should go in.  Or simply feel like. If there is a gay character in this someone offended is wrong. Because they’re working off the basis the entirety of human history had the same exact views on sexuality.  And I find most complaining about “forced inclusion” to just be inclusion. I know you’d like it if the amount of inclusion was offensive to you but It shouldn’t be controversial for an action movie to have gay protagonist anymore than the thousands of actions that firmly establish the main character’s heterosexuality. Or for a show to feature a gay couple when they could easily have a straight couple. 

A narrative should have a point, IMO. It should deliver an overarching message via its plot and characters. If gay characters are needed to make that point, then good. If not, then it doesn't really matter and I would argue if the sexuality is irrelevant it's always better to go with the default (hetro). Arguably, one of the main narrative points in GoTs is how power is attained and wielded among human kind - the gay characters added to this by showing how they used their sexuality to exert power over themselves and others, so their sexuality was additive to the story's purpose.

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Another odd reference to biology. Not all cliches could be explained away with just following the “rules of real biology”

A lot can. How does a cliche become a cliche anyway?

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And? Are you now arguing that you wouldn’t rjudge the people advocating genocide, and ethnic cleansing harshly  because they might have a good reason fo do just that? 

No, only that the way you talk about things makes me feel like you lack real world experience and just have a head full of ideals.

I have never seen this BoN and don't really care to. 

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I could have pointed out any other current despicable organization touting any loathsome ideology in the world. It could have been in the the British, it could have been a group in France. In my point would basically be the same. I only chose the KKK because they were the first example that came to mind. It’s ludicrous to act it’s wrong to be offended by any ideas-even ideas of genocide, ethnic cleansing or the subjugation of others. 

Focus on fixing problems closest to you before trying to solve the ills of the world. Its part of the problem of the information age - everyone wants to rant about the latest great injustice they have discovered but no-one is getting out and helping their neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what Birth of a Nation, a film by a man who was born 10 years after the Civil War ended, has to do with GOT or ASOIAF, but that's me.

Share this post


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

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

Thank you so much for this. 

Share this post


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

As for Americas historical and current issues with its African population, why they hell is that anyone but America's issue? Why does the rest of the world need to be reminded of it on a regular basis? It is not a global problem and does not need to be projected outside of the country it is relevant to at all.

These issues are projected to the rest of world because of the powerful propaganda machine of American Empire. Entire English  entertainment industry is part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 7:53 PM, 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.

I'm not sure I get your point. Rape and genital mutilation are two separate issues. And in a thread about feminism, you would expect women's issues to be on the forefront, no? Or is any discussion about women without including men in it too much to ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 7:33 PM, Jarl Halstein said:

"reinforces the worst stereotype of women as leaders"

You SJWs are ridiculous. A show where men murder and rape and loot, right up to the men who lead them - but oh, a woman is portrayed negatively! SEXISM!!!

Are you just virtue signaling or do you actually believe this? And your ridiculous talk about that people would think a female president would order a nuclear strike - after nearly two years of media propaganda in the election about how "Trump is too dangerous to trust with the nuclear codes". But you are extremely selective with what you see.

I can tell of course that you are just repeating talking points from some feminist article you read.

Look how badly women have been portrayed in the show! The Mad King wanting to burn the city, Robert Baratheon wasting the kingdom's money and cheating on his wife, psychotic Joffrey, Janos Slynt betraying his duty to side with the Lannisters against the king's Hand, murderous Littlefinger, psychotic Ramsay Bolton, rapist and murdering Dothraki, male slavers, The Mountain being a rapist and monster, traitor Roose Bolton betraying the Starks, Walder Frey massacring his guests at the wedding, criminal Night Watchmen killing and raping women beyond the Wall, Ironborn murdering and raping and invading, Jaime being prepared to murder Tulley's baby if that's what it took to get back to Cersey, the Night King planning to kill everyone in the world. But a woman is shown in a bad light! SEXISM!

You do realize that there aren't this many major or secondary female characters in the show or books right? Dany is like the only female leader, while there are several highborn women that get to play a role, like Sansa, Catelyn, and of course Cersei. You easily counted a whole bunch of bad men in a story where the vast majority of characters are men. And women readers only had to go by like one or two female characters. And Cersei was obviously bad from the start, like Joffery, Tywin, Walder, whatever. Now the story has two mad queens but many kings/leaders who were either good, bad, or just meh. The OP makes really good points. And if you are calling people SJWs here, you shouldn't probably just be on 4chan. 

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

×