awful double standards >:(

[Knez Snow]

^ Being for or against something should depend on whether or not it's right, not whether or not it can be changed. I'm sure no one living through those times thought they could do anything about slavery either and, well, go figure.

That's exactly the kind of attitude that makes these things not change.

OK, so what I ment is. Some things you litteraly cannot change and have to simply take into account (like gravity). Some other things you can (and should) change. But change is vague term. It can be good, bad, unnecesary etc. For example, if you are an antilop you can complain how it's unfair that cheetahs are trying to eat you all the time, and that antilopes and cheetahs should be friends. But that won't save you. What you should actually do is accapt the fact that they are trying to eat you, and run. Sometimes you should not change the world, you should adapt. In other cases, you should change things (like slavery). There are also individualist and collectivis viewpoints, on indvidual level adaptation is usually better and on collective change is sometimes neccesary. I am a socialist, so i definatley am not against radical changes per se, if they are well founded and justified(which I don't think feminism is, I think there are too many flaws with it on too many levels, especially RadFem).

When it comes to change, we can always discuss:

1.What reality actually is presently or historicaly

2.Can you change it

3.Should it be changed and why

4.What exact changes should be made, what exact changes would be good or bad

5.How to introduce new changes

6.Possible sideffects; is medicine worse than disease

7.Is it worth it

Answers depend on what we are talking about of course, but people often jump this steps, or get some wrong.

In this praticular case, men are expected to be strong or perrish, and to change that one would have to redefine humanity, change human evolution. It can't be done. And I don't think it should be done. Imagine implications, humans would not be humans anymore. Sure some cultural/societal and even behevioral factors could and perhaps should be changed (question is in which way, and it would still had to account for biology), but that is another discussion. Still biology would do it's thing so you can only go up to a point.

I hope this wasn't too offtopic, I apologize in any case.

However, men being expected to be less emotional and sensitive is a reallity at this point, whether we like it or not. And this should be taken into account when reading between the lines of Sophie and Jack's answers. Just because we don't agree with this stereotyping it doesn't mean it won't happen and it doesn't mean that Jack and Sophie aren't very likelly influenced by it when they answers interviews - they likelly are, specially at such young age.

I agree with this. I guess that was the point in the beggining, that we should take this reality into account when we are discussing this issue, and not discard it.

[Sir Noone Sword Of The Day]

A great actor and great actress in my opinion, If i was told by a fan that they hated the character i played, i would be honored in a weird way, at least I would be sparking a reaction from the audience, which is what TV is all about right?

[Roose Seal]

A great actor and great actress in my opinion, If i was told by a fan that they hated the character i played, i would be honored in a weird way, at least I would be sparking a reaction from the audience, which is what TV is all about right?

So Lena Headey is supposed to be honored that people spit at her because they hate Cersei?

[Buckwheat]

In this praticular case, men are expected to be strong or perrish, and to change that one would have to redefine humanity, change human evolution. It can't be done. And I don't think it should be done. Imagine implications, humans would not be humans anymore. Sure some cultural/societal and even behevioral factors could and perhaps should be changed (question is in which way, and it would still had to account for biology), but that is another discussion. Still biology would do it's thing so you can only go up to a point.

I disgaree, respectfully. You made a good post and the points you made before the quoted part were all correct. What I have issue with is that part.

You basically claim that gender stereotypisation is something that is part of human nature and cannot and should not be changed. I think that gender stereotypes - men are strong, women are emotional - are wrong. First thing, it disregards the individual, one's individual psychology and development. I think it is just a cultural and social stereotype and not something natural - there were matriarchal cultures in the human history as well, are you implying those people were not human because they were a part of another culture? The opinion that men are supposed to be immune to emotions as opposed to women is not something that evolution brought to us, but it is a product of culture. Also, as stereotypisation, it is wrong, it is something that one should be against and something that can and must change.

[Reposado]

"Pehaps this is not a double standard. Pehaps it's just that Sophie is more truthful about what really happens and/or more sensitive, while Jack is the more collected, "follow the press guy orientation" type. The real double standard here probably has more to do with how boys and girls are raised, not how both characters are perceived. Also, I have a really hard time believing some character on the show is more hated than Joffrey."

you also have to figure, that people would probably be too scared to tell jack gleeson they hated his character. i mean, these are people that have seen the show. i'd think twice about calling him anything other than a wise and generous actor.

[Jon Mark Selmy]

I agree with this. I guess that was the point in the beggining, that we should take this reality into account when we are discussing this issue, and not discard it.

Good, then we are on the same page.

But I must say: I'm also a socialist. And I really must ask how can you consider yourself a socialist, i.e. bent on ending inequality without being a feminist. Do you disagree that women are opressed or do you just have a very weird definition of "socialism"?

But a word of caution: latelly we ARE having a wave of femism (the ultra-feminism that borders on androginy) among the political vanguard, although by no means this is as problematic and dangerous or even statistically close to the amount of machism that still exists within the average citizen.

Let the healthy discussions begin.

[Nine of Spades]

I don't get the Sansa hate at all...seriously...

Sansa hate is a subset of "why did you do that, you should know better." When bad things happen, like the death of Eddard, because a character does something the audience feels they should no better to do, they get a lot of hate. In contrast Joffery is just evil, and people sort of accept that he is acting within his nature, so his behavior, while worse, triggers less "outrage".

The good news for the actress and Sansa is that I think her character arc is going to end up winning people over.

[Knez Snow]

Good, then we are on the same page.

But I must say: I'm also a socialist. And I really must ask how can you consider yourself a socialist, i.e. bent on ending inequality without being a feminist. Do you disagree that women are opressed or do you just have a very weird definition of "socialism"?

But a word of caution: latelly we ARE having a wave of femism (the ultra-feminism that borders on androginy) among the political vanguard, although by no means this is as problematic and dangerous or even statistically close to the amount of machism that still exists within the average citizen.

Let the healthy discussions begin.

Essence of socialism is not equality; it is a classless society (there is a difference; if you work more you get more but you can't become upper parasitical class that is not profiting from their labor but is exploitating other people's (working class) labour). Plus some solidarity (From everyone according to abilities, to everyone according to needs). I also disagree that women were opressed as a class by men as a class. Partriarchy (regular version of theory, not feminist one) was more complicated than that. Yes I am for equality of all people under law etc., but I don't see why would I have to accept this idea that feminism somehow has monopoly over being for equality. Being for equality is called egalitarianism anyway.

[Stannis the Menace]

i can understand the sansa hate because in the first book/season she is all like attached to joffrey and tries to defend him and what not, and ends up getting Lady killed. That is/was all her fault. But that is the character Sansa. If saw Sophie Turner on the street, i would probably ask her out on a date lol

But if i saw jack gleeson on the street id probably punch him in the face ahahah

someone said something about double standards...

[Mammothsbane]

i can understand the sansa hate because in the first book/season she is all like attached to joffrey and tries to defend him and what not, and ends up getting Lady killed. That is/was all her fault. But that is the character Sansa. If saw Sophie Turner on the street, i would probably ask her out on a date lol

But if i saw jack gleeson on the street id probably punch him in the face ahahah

someone said something about double standards...

Society hates women. I think that's the point of this thread.

[HouseHarrison]

Sophie has the most /aww moment I've heard from the show's production thus far, adopting the dog they used to play Lady. Totally undeserved.

[poundsand]

if you work more you get more...

....

From everyone according to abilities, to everyone according to needs)....

Reconcile these statements.

[Southron_Ambitions]

Since it seems to have been missed the first and second time, I will post again.

My disgust was with the gender stereotyping of Gleeson. He shouldn't be scolded as a crybaby because he's as shaken as everyone else of threatening people who can't tell fantasy from reality. merely because he has a penis.

(yes, I'm a radfem. That's why I don't like the nastiness towards human being (male or female) being creeped out by weirdos)

My head isn't in the sand. I'm, saying it's wrong to hold Jack Gleeson to a higher stance of holding his emotions than Sophie Turner merely because he's male, which was what I was responding to originally.

My entire point was that it is wrong to encourage gender stereotypes like 'men are expected to be less emotional.'

Female, male, no one deserves these nasty boxes society seems to love.

Okay, this is my third post explaining my original point. Kudos to the mods for deleting the posts that were attacking me, assuming the wrong thing.

I hope this is the last time I have to say my post was defending a male actor without getting misinterpreted and insulted.

That wasn't your original point in relation to your response to my post. Your original point was to scold me for what you took as my defense of holding men and women to different standards in relation to showing emotion and weakness. You inferred that I was implying some kind of innate difference in men and women, totally unfounded by anything I actually said. YOU misintrepreted MY post, not the other way around, as my point was simply that society has different standards, and as such Sophie may feel more free to share her experiences than Jack...a perfectly logical point and not at all a defense of the status quo.

[Knez Snow]

Reconcile these statements.

Those are not contradictory. Need is the minimum. That does not exclude more, as long as you don't exploit others.

[poundsand]

Those are not contradictory. Need is the minimum. That does not exclude more, as long as you don't exploit others.

It does exclude more for working more, and it is not a minimum - to each according to need. You need more,, you get more. You don't need more, you don't get more.

Additionally, you need less, even if you work more, you get less. And you don't chose whether you work more or less to possibly get more; you work according to how much you can - from each according to abilities.