Game Of Thrones. Do I Give Up Now? WTF

She's incredibly thick.

Without wishing to spoil the plot, the whole point of the scene to which she refers is that viewers were disturbed because the female character appeared to be strongly non-consenting, then this became consent because she 'enjoyed' the rape.

The message (intentional or not) was that women secretly enjoy rape, so men shouldn't worry about them saying 'no' if those women have a history of enjoying sex with them.

This is an incredibly dangerous rape myth given how many rapes are by men known to the woman.

Professional troll Liz Jones has joined the Game of Thrones discussion in order to bait her readers with rape myths (I found this mildly triggering):

Rape with no violence, and little resistance, is in no way comparable to what the Russians did to the inhabitants of Berlin. A little faux resistance does not a crime make.

My feeling is that women should stop being so pathetic. We cannot have everything our own way: equal pay, year-long maternity leave, seats given up on the Tube, while on the other hand we get in a stew over a fictional bit of nonsense where a woman struggles, tossing her long blonde hair, before getting down and dirty and sighing with pleasure.

I haven't seen GoT so I can't comment on how this relates to the programme. She's completely wrong about rape, though.

possible - but not detailed spoilers

HotSauceCommittee - men that are sexually abused (trying not to give any spoilers) include Theon Greyjoy, Varys, and all 8000 of Dany's unsullied.

True, it's not the same type of sexual violence (mutilation rather than rape) but I think it still counts. In terms of Buffy's proposed research, apart from Theon's, which was very graphic and deemed torture-porn by some reviewers, the others were not actually shown on screen, and therefore were not 'presented' in the same way (titilating, excessive focus etc). However, in a recent episode Varys actually states that he was 'glad' of what happened to him as a boy, which I personally found disturbing - as it minimised/excused sexual violence.

LRD, I watched the first three series of GoT and now started reading the books. From what I can see after reading only 1/3 of book one, I agree with you that the books are more sexist than the TV shows. It's not so much what GM writes about but how he writes about it. He describes women's naked bodies in a rather lascivious way. The description of Danaerys's first sex on her wedding night is downright pornographic. And we are talking about a rape of a 13 year old girl here.

Still, I have to admit that GM can arrange a good plot and tell a good story. I like the fact that his characters are not just black and white.

Russian poet Alexander Pushkin said that evil and genius are incompatible. I am not sure I agree.

Yes, I agree it's really uncomfortable viewing!

I'm also not sure about the 'the men are treated badly too,' for the same reasons. Though I think some later plots make that slightly different.

I find it really fascinating how people respond to it (and how I respond to it). I'd love to carry on debating, I just don't want to spoil it for you.

It is strange, isn't it? I don't personally think I am 'triggered' (though there are bits I just don't watch). But I do find with this and with other things, I watch a lot of it and I feel sort of exhausted by it all. I'd agree with briar it's not 'principles' but something more emotional.

ramsay - I don't read a lot else that's just men's stories with a few women in the background (I'm doing the 'reading books by women' thing, though not strictly, and it does make a difference). So I think that is why I notice it.

buffy - but then, if Stannis is anyone he'd surely also be Humphrey of Lancaster because Eleanor Cobham was a witch like Melisandre, and Tyrion makes me think of Richard III.

I can believe Martin took elements of lots of historical characters (there's also, surely, Ancient Egypt in there with the Targaryens marrying brothers and sisters, and with Quarth's House of the Undying perhaps, and bits of Rome, and so on). I just can't really accept the argument which some people seem to be making in the media, that 'it's the Wars of the Roses, so it's like real history, so it's ok the women are presented like that'. It's not near close enough to say that.

And if it were near close enough a historical parallel, I would still disagree strongly that women were treated like this. I actually think there's a huge problem with the idea that it's ok to take historically specific mistreatments of women, and substitute in 'generic mistreatment no 2: violence and rape flavour'. Which is a bit what I think he does.

Ramsey I have no other problem with your post, however the word "principles" bothered me. To me it made it sound like the only reason women don't want to watch scenes of male violence against women is because of feminist ideals, and that we could possibly temporarly turn off those ideals and enjoy the show.

Well yes Briar of course, goes without saying. Not sure why you picked on my post to point that out; I never said anything to the contrary.

I do think they are as well rounded as the men LRD. They have back stories, you read their thoughts and motivations and they drive the plot as much as the men. Not perfect, no, but it's certainly not a men's story with a few women in it in the background like usual.

I watched one episode of this, couldn't for the life of me understand what the hell was going on, and gave up. Seemed pretty crap to me...

Whether you can subdues your principles enough to enjoy it possibly depends on your personality.

Just a reminder that it isn't necessarily principles that makes it unreadable/unwatchable for some, but because it's full of triggering content.

vettles - well, I wouldn't have picked up on it without someone telling me. What exactly makes it a connection other than that they're rival houses? They don't even work geographically - the Lannisters are southern and the Starks are northern, aren't they?

ramsay - I dunno, are they rounded characters? I started off thinking so and I do enjoy the TV series for that. But by the end of the books some characters I'd really enjoyed reading about early on seem to sink into stereotypes. (Trying not to spoiler!)

I don't know anything much about the War of the Roses, but even I picked up on the Lannister vs Stark/Lancaster vs York connection.

I started reading the books in January and recently finished them (not seen the TV show). I found them really compelling, well written (despite far too much description about food and clothing) and really well planned, i.e. no detail is insignificant.

However, there is no getting away from the fact that every rape scene, every bit of violence, every bit of misogyny and the extensive mentions and normalisation of prostitution ('whores') were dreamt up and deliberately included by GRRM. He decided to put all that in there, he didn't have to, it's not a biography or a study, it's his choice and that's disturbing.

Why does such a skilled writer feel compelled to put that in when most of it is not necessary or directly connected to the plot. Either he enjoys writing gratuitous rapes (did Lollys really need to be gang raped by 'over 50 people?) and graphic, violent misogyny or he knows there's a big audience that will enjoy those extra touches. Either way, it's saddening...and really annoying that people are trying to justify it by declaring it 'true to life'. I have even read that some 'redpillers' say that the Dany/Drogo relationship is the best relationship model (despite it being invented and ending in death and a pyre)

But, I did become immersed in the story and managed to either overlook or overcome the misogyny. I guess that comes from years of practice; there isn't too much to enjoy unless you occasionally put aside your feminist principles: I suppose this the archetype of cognitive dissonance But does the fact that I am aware I am performing cognitive dissonance make it something else?

The female characters are well rounded and fully involved characters. This does redeem GRRM's significant salacious streak IMO. The female characters are not merely tropes i.e meek wife/ feisty-heroine-who-falls-for-hero-and-becomes-submissive/ mother-in-the-background. They are diverse, drive the plot and are, for once neither all virgin or all whore.

So, in conclusion, it's certainly not feminist-friendly or historically accurate but it is compelling and a brilliant story. Whether you can subdues your principles enough to enjoy it possibly depends on your personality. If you don't want to get into it and the gratuitous misogyny distracts you too much then, of course, give up. It's shit we should have to choose I'm going to try the TV series but if it's too joyously graphic (i.e. celebrating violence, making it look cool etc.) hen I won't last long.

The scene in the books that fans say was consensual that they turned into a rape scene in the show wasn't actually consensual in the book either, but the fact that the female character was on her period and in a Sept (church) next to the body of her son seems to have overshadowed this fact so that's all people remember and are disgusted about.

To add to eyelinerqueen's list of feminist characters:

Gilly - escapes the abusive home of her father and literally enters an unknown world to her in order to save her son

Melisandre - started life as a slave, now an important and powerful ally of Stannis Baratheon

The women of the Mormont family - Maege Mormont is "lord" of Bear Island, she has never married but no one dares to consider her daughters to be bastards. Her daughters are all strong women, warriors, mothers (sometimes both) and loyal respected bannermen to the Starks. Even the youngest a 10 year old has no problems putting Kings in their place.

Prince Oberyn's daughters (they do have names but there is loads of them) - trained as warriors, maesters, septas - basically anything they wanted to be. even if it means pretending to be male.

Meera Reed - currently travelling with Bran and Hodor, she can fight and hunt and is basically keeping that little group alive at the moment.

Val - a wilding woman (hasn't appeared in the show yet) she is a bit like Ygritte, won't spoilt what she does incase she is going to appear on the show.

warning for minor spoilers below

Extremepie "it isn't gratuitous bad treatment of women"; just some "background" scenes from the book include a 13 year old being gangraped while her brother is stabbed in front of her, the rape and enslavement of entire villages/tribes by the Dothraki, the sack of the Saltpans including the rape and torture of a 12 year old, the Ironborn raping a lord's daughter while her family watched and was unable to help her, the rape and murder of a group of slaves by another ironborn, literally everything Ramsey Bolton does to any woman he meets, a highborn but "simple" woman being raped by 50 men and her treatment by other characters afterwards (she should "get over it" basically), King Aerys treatment of his wife and of the wife of a man who rebelled against him (he had her tongue and "womanly parts" ripped out), a woman so traumatised by whatever happened to her she is unable to speak, the forced marriage and rape of Lady Hornword who is later locked in a tower and eats her own fingers before starving to death, a "pretty whore" who has her teeth knocked out after being punched by a mailed fist and is then put in the stocks where she is repeatedly raped.

As I said these are just some "background" scenes that I can remember and I haven't included anything that is important to the plot (otherwise it would be a lot longer!). I do like the books, but the story would not suffer if these things had been left out imo.

What's Gor?

But yes ... depressingly I think you are right about the 'misnomer'!

I like GoT but as I have no idea whatsoever about the Wars of the Roses or the rights of women at that time (my period was 800 - 1390) I'm probably more willing to nod along. OTOH I twitched all the way through Beowulf and the beautiful golden-titted monster. I think you're right that "historically accurate" is often a misnomer for "I would like to write graphic misogyny."

Still, it could be worse, I picked up a Gor book recently. That really is graphic misogyny!

Yeah, probably posy. But then, Martin seems to reckon he's proper medieval.

I don't have any issue with someone writing fantasy fiction, I just think it's annoying how many people say 'oh but it's true to the feel of the times' or 'oh but women were oppressed and shit back then'. I mean, come on: if you're that interested in real oppression, write something interesting about it. If you're not, don't use it to excuse why you chose to write graphic misogyny.

I say this as someone who does find GoT interesting to watch, though.

White walkers in medieval fiction: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenant

The ON aptrgangr even has the same immunity to normal weapons!

LRD isn't 'medieval' in a fantasy setting meant to mean more on the Arthurian / Eddaic side (as in has links to medieval fantasy fiction) rather than historically accurate re the medieval period? That's what I've always assumed.

There are certainly white walkers and dragons in some of the dusty books I've read which Martin has shamelessly ripped off but then so did Tolkien.

Many dragons. Not so many white walkers. Many naked women.

It's just the actual plot similarities to Wars of the Roses are escaping me. On another forum I have been told this is doubtless because I have little familiarity with British history - otherwise I'd of course be familiar with that branch of the middle ages where women were married off against their will but everyone was quite happy with a little over sexposition, cos those two things aren't contradictory at all ...

I'm fascinated by it and I enjoy watching it. But I think pop fiction is fascinating.

I've now read the books, and the books are IMO more sexist than the TV - despite the TV series occasionally making something unncessarily violent against women. The series makes convincing, strong female character and made me think about why we sympathise with men who are bastards. I think that is actually worth asking. It's definitely worth making people feel uncomfortable about liking misogynists.

The books don't, to my mind, do that so effectively. And bits of them make me cringe.

I will say, as a medievalist, the one thing that really annoys me is the idea it's absolutely ok for Martin to write whatever he fancies, or the TV show to show whatever they like, and then to claim it's 'true to history'. That is utter bollocks, really.