Misogyny in Game of Thrones?

[Alceste]

Oh come on, are you implying HBO doesn't like to show gratuitous sex if the woman gets pleasure from it? That's a little too "conspiracy theory" for me. I think they would be happy to show sex no matter where it comes from, also this is the network that hosts the shows Girls and Sex in the City, so that kind of blows that theory out of the water.

I'm saying the producers of this particular show cocked it up, with the effect that the sex in the show is blatant, interminable fan service, whereas the sex in the books is relatively brief and contributes to plot and / or character development.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm saying the producers of this particular show cocked it up, with the effect that the sex in the show is blatant, interminable fan service, whereas the sex in the books is relatively brief and contributes to plot and / or character development.

I disagree.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree.

Clearly.

 

[Penumbra]

Apart from the obvious misogynistic behavior that would be expected in a story set in medieval-like period with typical medieval laws and culture

I haven't read or watched Game of Thrones so I can't comment on that particular piece of fiction, but this point I disagree with.

Fantasy writers are gods. They can make the world however they want. It's alternative history, fake history, with dragons and magic and new religions and lands. It's not like forces of nature and various creatures can be added or subtracted from a fictional world and yet sexism and misogyny are somehow things that are universal constants and have to be there.

To have sexism and misogyny in any European-medieval or other low-tech fantasy world, means either lazily taking for granted certain aspects of a culture while freely changing others, or deliberately putting it in there as part of their world-building for one reason or another. So I don't necessarily have a problem with sexism or misogyny being in a fantasy novel but the idea that it's expected is something I don't agree with. It can be or not be there, or exist in some totally different way, just like any other piece of world-building and its subset, culture-building.

 

[Alceste]

I haven't read or watched Game of Thrones so I can't comment on that particular piece of fiction, but this point I disagree with.

Fantasy writers are gods. They can make the world however they want. It's alternative history, fake history, with dragons and magic and new religions and lands. It's not like forces of nature and various creatures can be added or subtracted from a fictional world and yet sexism and misogyny are somehow things that are universal constants and have to be there.

To have sexism and misogyny in any European-medieval or other low-tech fantasy world, means either lazily taking for granted certain aspects of a culture while freely changing others, or deliberately putting it in there as part of their world-building for one reason or another. So I don't necessarily have a problem with sexism or misogyny being in a fantasy novel but the idea that it's expected is something I don't agree with. It can be or not be there, or exist in some totally different way, just like any other piece of world-building and its subset, culture-building.

Great point, Penumbra. When I think of my favorite fantasy series, misogyny doesn't feature, however "medieval" the setting. Wheel of Time, Discworld, anything by Ursula Le Guinn, all prominently feature powerful, well developed female characters and a lack of objectification. That was also the case with the book version of game of thrones, though not the tv show. The fact that anyone would argue that fantasy readers should EXPECT misogyny says more about or culture in general than the genre, especially given that the vast majority of fantasy readers are women.

 

[freethinker44]

I haven't read or watched Game of Thrones so I can't comment on that particular piece of fiction, but this point I disagree with.

Fantasy writers are gods. They can make the world however they want. It's alternative history, fake history, with dragons and magic and new religions and lands. It's not like forces of nature and various creatures can be added or subtracted from a fictional world and yet sexism and misogyny are somehow things that are universal constants and have to be there.

To have sexism and misogyny in any European-medieval or other low-tech fantasy world, means either lazily taking for granted certain aspects of a culture while freely changing others, or deliberately putting it in there as part of their world-building for one reason or another. So I don't necessarily have a problem with sexism or misogyny being in a fantasy novel but the idea that it's expected is something I don't agree with. It can be or not be there, or exist in some totally different way, just like any other piece of world-building and its subset, culture-building.

Sure, they can make the world however they want, but it shouldn't be a surprise to see elements that are common to the chosen setting. Could Game of Thrones been written without misogynist undertones common to a medieval setting? Of course, but it would have completely changed the story: the kingdom passing to the first-born son instead of the wife is kind of an important plot point that shaped the entire series.

I only said what you quoted because I don't think common setting elements should be used to judge whether or not a story is... whatever criticism you have about it. For example, we wouldn't say Django Unchained was racist because it had slavery in it. Slavery was common in the setting chosen. Could it have been written without slavery? Sure, but it wasn't. Is that wrong that it wasn't? Absolutely not.

 

[Penumbra]

Great point, Penumbra. When I think of my favorite fantasy series, misogyny doesn't feature, however "medieval" the setting. Wheel of Time, Discworld, anything by Ursula Le Guinn, all prominently feature powerful, well developed female characters and a lack of objectification. That was also the case with the book version of game of thrones, though not the tv show. The fact that anyone would argue that fantasy readers should EXPECT misogyny says more about or culture in general than the genre, especially given that the vast majority of fantasy readers are women.

Yup, I agree it says more about culture than the genre. I didn't know most fantasy readers were women, though.

My favorite fantasy series is not sexist. Or at least, it's less sexist than modern culture to a point where I don't notice it if it is. It takes place in medieval Europe, even more accurate to the real world than many fantasy novels because it includes all sorts of existing religions and keeps magic to a low relevance (people even argue it's more alternative history than actual fantasy due to the rarity of magic, although it is fantasy because magic and new gods do exist), but the alternative history of it led to there simply not being significant sexism in that land. Sexism is totally a choice by the writer-god.

I've outlined and partially written my own fantasy, and there's not sexism. It's not even like I decided there wouldn't be sexism; it just hasn't showed up.

Sure, they can make the world however they want, but it shouldn't be a surprise to see elements that are common to the chosen setting.

Not really. It's fantasy. Dragons aren't common to any setting, but they often exist in fantasy. People usually speak in fairly modern English, too. And the whole map of the world is fictitious with fictitious places.

Sexism is a choice.

Could Game of Thrones been written without misogynist undertones common to a medieval setting? Of course, but it would have completely changed the story: the kingdom passing to the first-born son instead of the wife is kind of an important plot point that shaped the entire series.

I only said what you quoted because I don't think common setting elements should be used to judge whether or not a story is... whatever criticism you have about it. For example, we wouldn't say Django Unchained was racist because it had slavery in it. Slavery was common in the setting chosen. Could it have been written without slavery? Sure, but it wasn't. Is that wrong that it wasn't? Absolutely not.

Like I said I haven't read Game of Thrones. I also haven't seen this Django Unchained movie. I'm not against sexism/misogyny/racism appearing in fiction. From the previews, Django unchained was about racism/slavery. And it was basically fictional history rather than fantasy right? I'm talking about using that particular excuse of it being expected for the fantasy genre as a whole.

My point is that when you take a European medieval setting but add dragons and magic and new religions, it's a lame excuse if a writer or audience claims that sexism is just natural because of the setting. The setting is whatever the writer wants it to be, and they already changed it as much as they decided to. If a writer decides they want misogyny, that's okay. But the idea that it just is there by default or has to be there, is something I don't agree with. And as much as the European-medieval style fantasy is totally overused, I also think that sexism/misogyny in low tech fantasy is worlds is taken for granted by authors too often.

So I mean, you can debate that GoT isn't misogynistic, or that misogyny exists in the world-building for a reason. I'm not going to contest that because it's not a series I'm familiar with. But what I'll contest is the strange idea that if it's a European-medieval fantasy setting, you can add dragons and magic and modern language and entirely new kingdoms and lands and religions, but sexism still should be expected because it's medieval Europe.

 

[Drolefille]

So I mean, you can debate that GoT isn't misogynistic, or that misogyny exists in the world-building for a reason. I'm not going to contest that because it's not a series I'm familiar with. But what I'll contest is the strange idea that if it's a European-medieval fantasy setting, you can add dragons and magic and modern language and entirely new kingdoms and lands and religions, but sexism still should be expected because it's medieval Europe.

:clap:clap:clap

 

[freethinker44]

But what I'll contest is the strange idea that if it's a European-medieval fantasy setting, you can add dragons and magic and modern language and entirely new kingdoms and lands and religions, but sexism still should be expected because it's medieval Europe.

It shouldn't be unexpected either, which is why I said apart from the obvious elements in the setting, how is it misogynistic. And after thinking about it more, I think it can be argued that the typical medieval misogyny displayed in the series serves not only to advance the story but highlight the strength and intelligence of the central women characters. So forget I even said that, if anyone wants to argue the series is misogynistc because of medieval misogyny, go for it.

 

[Drolefille]

It shouldn't be unexpected either, which is why I said apart from the obvious elements in the setting, how is it misogynistic. And after thinking about it more, I think it can be argued that the typical medieval misogyny displayed in the series serves not only to advance the story but highlight the strength and intelligence of the central women characters. So forget I even said that, if anyone wants to argue the series is misogynistc because of medieval misogyny, go for it.

The author chose the setting. What many argue is that misogyny does not have to be part of a medieval fantasy setting.

So the question is why did the author choose that as part of the setting, and I do think that Martin has shown an interest in highlighting the agency of women in a culture that denies them power. That does mean there are a lot of women who are victims - and it's always rape, doesn't it seem? Others may feel that it ultimately focuses too much on the victimhood and not enough on the agency and therefore in his attempt to "use" misogyny he has promoted it. I disagree and think that Martin using misogyny has been rather effective - although I'll point out he's not great at writing from inside a woman's head - really I don't think about my nipples touching clothing ALL THE TIME.

There's plenty of arguments on it if you're interested in looking that aren't "just" complaining about how misogynistic that time period is, but I have to agree with Penumbra that if you have dragons and zombies you really don't have a lot of room to claim "REALISM"

 

[freethinker44]

The author chose the setting. What many argue is that misogyny does not have to be part of a medieval fantasy setting.

If not for the archaic misogynistic laws of the land, the series would have ended half way through the first book. Cersie would have rightfully inherited the kingdom after Robert died and that would have been the end of it. So in this case, it's kind of important to the story, otherwise it wouldn't be Game of Thrones.

So the question is why did the author choose that as part of the setting, and I do think that Martin has shown an interest in highlighting the agency of women in a culture that denies them power. That does mean there are a lot of women who are victims - and it's always rape, doesn't it seem? Others may feel that it ultimately focuses too much on the victimhood and not enough on the agency and therefore in his attempt to "use" misogyny he has promoted it. I disagree and think that Martin using misogyny has been rather effective - although I'll point out he's not great at writing from inside a woman's head - really I don't think about my nipples touching clothing ALL THE TIME.

I pretty much agree with this. I might take issue with the victim thing, pretty much everyone in Game of Thrones is a victim in some way, most of the time brutally so, I mean we could argue it but it would just be arguing to what degree women are more than everyone else, it's not exactly a world I would want to live in.

There's plenty of arguments on it if you're interested in looking that aren't "just" complaining about how misogynistic that time period is,

Well, that's exactly what this thread is asking. By all means, if there are arguments on the misogyny in Game of Thrones, please, present them.

but I have to agree with Penumbra that if you have dragons and zombies you really don't have a lot of room to claim "REALISM"

It's hardly claiming realism, and I'm not claiming it is realistic, just using a particular setting in a fictional capacity.

 

[Alceste]

The author chose the setting. What many argue is that misogyny does not have to be part of a medieval fantasy setting.

So the question is why did the author choose that as part of the setting, and I do think that Martin has shown an interest in highlighting the agency of women in a culture that denies them power. That does mean there are a lot of women who are victims - and it's always rape, doesn't it seem? Others may feel that it ultimately focuses too much on the victimhood and not enough on the agency and therefore in his attempt to "use" misogyny he has promoted it. I disagree and think that Martin using misogyny has been rather effective - although I'll point out he's not great at writing from inside a woman's head - really I don't think about my nipples touching clothing ALL THE TIME.

There's plenty of arguments on it if you're interested in looking that aren't "just" complaining about how misogynistic that time period is, but I have to agree with Penumbra that if you have dragons and zombies you really don't have a lot of room to claim "REALISM"

If you're talking about the books, I'd argue that the Denaerys storyline counterbalances the patriarchal customs of most of the houses in the books. Likewise, the Tyrells are a pretty matriarchal clan even in the TV show. The men of that family are twittering, vapid pretty, insignificant things (like their gay son), while all the politics is in the hands of the women of the family. So, even though marriage is how status and power is attained throughout the kingdom (for men as well as women), the first born son tradition of some families is a minor hurdle for these particular women.

If you're talking about the tv show, which I assume he also contributes to, then yeah, he may be unintentionally promoting misogyny (or at the very least, objectification) since the production has basically failed to put the viewer in the shoes of most of the female characters. Also, I don't think the actress playing Denaerys is a great choice, frankly. She's very good at looking pretty, but does not project power, integrity, authority, vision, strength etc. with the result that her story kind of makes no sense. So the potential for her story balancing the stories of the patriarchs is lost.

Anyway, bla bla bla. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I already know who killed Joffrey and why.

 

[freethinker44]

Anyway, bla bla bla. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I already know who killed Joffrey and why.

If it's a one armed man, I quit. :sarcastic

 

[Mycroft]

GoT is basically a realistic medieval drama with fantasy overlayed. In such times women were, essentially, 2nd class citizen. Therefore there's nothing wrong with portraying mysoginy. It would be like complaining about racism for a program about the slave trade.

 

[Alceste]

GoT is basically a realistic medieval drama with fantasy overlayed. In such times women were, essentially, 2nd class citizen. Therefore there's nothing wrong with portraying mysoginy. It would be like complaining about racism for a program about the slave trade.

Realistic? In what sense?

 

[Drolefille]

GoT is basically a realistic medieval drama with fantasy overlayed. In such times women were, essentially, 2nd class citizen. Therefore there's nothing wrong with portraying mysoginy. It would be like complaining about racism for a program about the slave trade.

It's.... not realistic in a lot of ways. As much as this is "War of the Roses with Dragons" calling it realistic is a stretch.

If you're talking about the books, I'd argue that the Denaerys storyline counterbalances the patriarchal customs of most of the houses in the books.

Eventually, yeah, although early on we have her brother abusing her and her husband raping her (and no I can't really not call it rape particularly given her age and the fact that her brother arranged the marriage.)

Likewise, the Tyrells are a pretty matriarchal clan even in the TV show. The men of that family are twittering, vapid pretty, insignificant things (like their gay son), while all the politics is in the hands of the women of the family. So, even though marriage is how status and power is attained throughout the kingdom (for men as well as women), the first born son tradition of some families is a minor hurdle for these particular women.

And they're quite rare for it, again these are things that have developed over time in the books and are just starting to be... obvious? in the show. Without spoiling anything. (Oh and I do still need to read book 5 which I"ve been putting off due to needing to reread 1-4 first... so although I've read spoilers I'm sure I'm missing cool stuff.)

If you're talking about the tv show, which I assume he also contributes to, then yeah, he may be unintentionally promoting misogyny (or at the very least, objectification) since the production has basically failed to put the viewer in the shoes of most of the female characters. Also, I don't think the actress playing Denaerys is a great choice, frankly. She's very good at looking pretty, but does not project power, integrity, authority, vision, strength etc. with the result that her story kind of makes no sense. So the potential for her story balancing the stories of the patriarchs is lost.

I'd place most of the blame on that on HBO.

Anyway, bla bla bla. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I already know who killed Joffrey and why.

Hell, wouldn't we all have done it, if we'd had the chance. In our hearts, WE killed King Joffrey. And I'm OK with it.

If not for the archaic misogynistic laws of the land, the series would have ended half way through the first book. Cersie would have rightfully inherited the kingdom after Robert died and that would have been the end of it. So in this case, it's kind of important to the story, otherwise it wouldn't be Game of Thrones.

Eh, you could easily argue that the Queen/King Consort isn't in line for the throne like a Queen/King Regnant would be. Also you could write the story differently. Which is exactly whad would have been needed had the misogyny been removed.

I pretty much agree with this. I might take issue with the victim thing, pretty much everyone in Game of Thrones is a victim in some way, most of the time brutally so, I mean we could argue it but it would just be arguing to what degree women are more than everyone else, it's not exactly a world I would want to live in.

I kind of expected the "but everyone's a victim" thing, which wasn't really my point. The argument would be about the focus on victimhood over agency.

Well, that's exactly what this thread is asking. By all means, if there are arguments on the misogyny in Game of Thrones, please, present them.

There's a ton, I gave my opinion. The rest are out in the internets. Free as birds flitting around. I haven't gathered and sourced everything because I don't really feel like he IS being misogynistic with the writing.

It's hardly claiming realism, and I'm not claiming it is realistic, just using a particular setting in a fictional capacity.

For many people it's the feeling that it's lazy and just an excuse, "that's how medieval societies were..." that is. I just read Magician's Apprentice by Feist, and found much of the same problem but worse (as well as horrible exposition.) No female POV characters, little female agency, the Bechedel test would not be passed.

 

[HexBomb]

Cersie would have rightfully inherited the kingdom after Robert died and that would have been the end of it.

Why? She was not of his House, she repeatedly rejected his House interests for her own, and he (believed) he had a son by blood. Why would she inherit?

 

[freethinker44]

Why? She was not of his House, she repeatedly rejected his House interests for her own, and he (believed) he had a son by blood. Why would she inherit?

If the laws weren't misogynistic everything he had would have gone to his wife instead of his son.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Start with something good.

Add hot, naked chicks.

Now, it's even better.

That's not misogyny, just simple math.

 

[freethinker44]

Start with something good.

Add hot, naked chicks.

Now, it's even better.

That's not misogyny, just simple math.

I like math.