Misogyny in Game of Thrones?

[HexBomb]

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

Why? If Joffrey and Myrcella's birth order had been shifted, and Joffrey still inherited, I would understand the argument, but that didn't happen. When my mother died everything she had went to me, not my father, is that misandry?

 

[freethinker44]

Why? If Joffrey and Myrcella's birth order had been shifted, and Joffrey still inherited, I would understand the argument, but that didn't happen. When my mother died everything she had went to me, not my father, is that misandry?

I'm not going to go into the history of misogyny in medieval law which Game of Thrones clearly uses, so if you don't think it was misogynistic then don't worry about it, it's not what this discussion is about. The question was, is Game of Thrones misogynistic, so if you don't think the medieval setting was misogynistic that's fine, that crosses off one issue and we can move on.

 

[HexBomb]

I'm not going to go into the history of misogyny in medieval law which Game of Thrones clearly uses, so if you don't think it was misogynistic then don't worry about it, it's not what this discussion is about. The question was, is Game of Thrones misogynistic, so if you don't think the medieval setting was misogynistic that's fine, that crosses off one issue and we can move on.

I do think the medieval world was misogynistic, I just don't think laws that have one's children inheriting over one's spouses automatically mean misogyny. I don't think we can look at the fact that Cersei didn't become queen (something she had no right of blood to) and use that of proof as misogyny, when in the medieval world, women couldn't inherit. We have Houses like Allyrion, Dustin, Flint of Widow Watch and others ruled by women. We see House Cerwyn be inherited by a woman, Karstark which will be, and Blackmont and Mormont which are held by women with female heirs.

I kinda want to make a list now of all the houses controlled by women or with female heirs using the wiki instead of off the top of my head, but I have school, and no time for anal-retentive fun like that.

 

[freethinker44]

I do think the medieval world was misogynistic, I just don't think laws that have one's children inheriting over one's spouses automatically mean misogyny. I don't think we can look at the fact that Cersei didn't become queen (something she had no right of blood to) and use that of proof as misogyny, when in the medieval world, women couldn't inherit. We have Houses like Allyrion, Dustin, Flint of Widow Watch and others ruled by women. We see House Cerwyn be inherited by a woman, Karstark which will be, and Blackmont and Mormont which are held by women with female heirs.

I'm not using it as proof of misogyny. Did you read any post I've made in this thread at all? I specifically argued it should not be used as proof that Game of Thrones is misogynistic.

I kinda want to make a list now of all the houses controlled by women or with female heirs using the wiki instead of off the top of my head, but I have school, and no time for anal-retentive fun like that.

You are certainly free to start a thread about it, but it's not what this thread is about.

 

[HexBomb]

I'm not using it as proof of misogyny. Did you read any post I've made in this thread at all? I specifically argued it should not be used as proof that Game of Thrones is misogynistic.

I did read the thread, and I don't have issues with most of it, I just have issues with the idea you stated not too many posts ago that if the laws were not misogynistic, everything would have gone to his wife. That's all. Why such a thing is misogynistic. Not is it proof of misogyny, but why would it suggest it?

Personally, I think the GoT universe shows people, there is misogyny on the parts of characters, I was simply trying to figure out the logic of the idea that "If the laws weren't misogynistic everything he had would have gone to his wife instead of his son."

You are certainly free to start a thread about it, but it's not what this thread is about.

I wasn't suggesting clogging up the thread with it, more wondering how many women truly have power in the world itself, versus men. I love cataloguing things is all.

 

[freethinker44]

I did read the thread, and I don't have issues with most of it, I just have issues with the idea you stated not too many posts ago that if the laws were not misogynistic, everything would have gone to his wife. That's all. Why such a thing is misogynistic. Not is it proof of misogyny, but why would it suggest it?

Personally, I think the GoT universe shows people, there is misogyny on the parts of characters, I was simply trying to figure out the logic of the idea that "If the laws weren't misogynistic everything he had would have gone to his wife instead of his son."

Such policies are misogynistic. If the laws weren't misogynistic, the King and Queen would share the kingdom and when the king died the kingdom would go to the Queen, but since they are misogynistic she gets nothing and everything goes to her son.

In societies like that, women have no real rights. They may be powerful as an extension of their husband's power, and they may retain power after their husband dies but ultimately they are just placeholders until a suitable male comes along, whether it be a suitor, a son that comes of age, or a daughters husband.

There are exceptions in Game of Thrones, after all it is ultimately a work of fiction and George RR Martin can take whatever liberties he pleases with it, but the rules that govern who gets the throne are pretty clear and follow the stereotypical medieval rules which were misogynistic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Such policies are misogynistic. If the laws weren't misogynistic, the King and Queen would share the kingdom and when the king died the kingdom would go to the Queen, but since they are misogynistic she gets nothing and everything goes to her son.

In societies like that, women have no real rights. They may be powerful as an extension of their husband's power, and they may retain power after their husband dies but ultimately they are just placeholders until a suitable male comes along, whether it be a suitor, a son that comes of age, or a daughters husband.

There are exceptions in Game of Thrones, after all it is ultimately a work of fiction and George RR Martin can take whatever liberties he pleases with it, but the rules that govern who gets the throne are pretty clear and follow the stereotypical medieval rules which were misogynistic.

Does patriarchal necessarily entail misogynistic?

 

[freethinker44]

Does patriarchal necessarily entail misogynistic?

Not necessarily, but if women lose everything because their husband dies then yeah, it's misogynistic.

 

[Alceste]

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

Er, that's not how it works at all. For example, when Lizzie kicks the bucket in the UK, Dumbo gets the crown. Not Elizabeth's husband. Crowns go to offspring, not spouses. Phillip is still a prince - not even a king.

 

[freethinker44]

Er, that's not how it works at all. For example, when Lizzie kicks the bucket in the UK, Dumbo gets the crown. Not Elizabeth's husband. Crowns go to offspring, not spouses.

I just think it's kind of misogynistic that the kingdom should go to the first-born son or the eldest brother instead of the Queen. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Penumbra]

I just think it's kind of misogynistic that the kingdom should go to the first-born son or the eldest brother instead of the Queen. That's just my opinion though.

I don't know about GoT but for general monarchies, they pass to the children. It's not exactly misogyny because if it's a queen, it'll pass to her children rather than her husband if she dies. But it is sexist/misogynistic if it only passes to males.

Marriage ties are not as strong as blood ties for the purposes of inheriting thrones, generally speaking.

 

[Drolefille]

I just think it's kind of misogynistic that the kingdom should go to the first-born son or the eldest brother instead of the Queen. That's just my opinion though.

King/Queen Consort vs. King/Queen Regnant.

That is a real life concept. Queen Consort doesn't inherit, the Crown Prince(ss) does. King/Prince Consort doesn't inherit, Crown Prince(ss) does. Cersei not inheriting isn't necessarily because she's a woman but because she's Queen Consort. She's later Regent, but not Queen Regnant.

 

[freethinker44]

So we're all agreed Game of Thrones isn't misogynistic then?

 

[Drolefille]

So we're all agreed Game of Thrones isn't misogynistic then?

No, I think we're all telling you that Cersei's ability to inherit the Baratheon throne is irrelevant to the matter.

 

[Alceste]

I just think it's kind of misogynistic that the kingdom should go to the first-born son or the eldest brother instead of the Queen. That's just my opinion though.

It's not misogynistic in the UK. The eldest child of the monarch becomes the monarch, regardless of gender. It's been that way for quite a while. Some of the houses in GOT operate this way, while some are more patriarchal. Either way, it's a choice, not an inevitable feature of a fantasy setting.

 

[freethinker44]

No, I think we're all telling you that Cersei's ability to inherit the Baratheon throne is irrelevant to the matter.

Then why do people keep bringing it up. I said in the very first post that, that stuff is typical medieval crap and shouldn't factor into whether or not the series is misogynistic. Since then that's all anyone can talk about. If it's irrelevant, let's move on. If you don't agree the series isn't misogynistic, let's hear an argument and stop talking about irrelevant issues that were established as irrelevant in the first post.

 

[freethinker44]

It's not misogynistic in the UK. The eldest child of the monarch becomes the monarch, regardless of gender. It's been that way for quite a while. Some of the houses in GOT operate this way, while some are more patriarchal. Either way, it's a choice, not an inevitable feature of a fantasy setting.

So not misogynistic then? Sounds good, it's a complete non-issue.

 

[Drolefille]

I just think it's kind of misogynistic that the kingdom should go to the first-born son or the eldest brother instead of the Queen. That's just my opinion though.

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

Such policies are misogynistic. If the laws weren't misogynistic, the King and Queen would share the kingdom and when the king died the kingdom would go to the Queen, but since they are misogynistic she gets nothing and everything goes to her son.

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.

Then why do people keep bringing it up.

Because you kept commenting about it?

Inheritance laws - regarding going to the children rather than spouse aren't inherently misogynistic in GoT or elsewhere. If you stop insisting they are the issue will probably get dropped.

If you keep focusing on that rather than the rest of the discussion that's all you're going to hear about.

 

[HexBomb]

Such policies are misogynistic. If the laws weren't misogynistic, the King and Queen would share the kingdom and when the king died the kingdom would go to the Queen, but since they are misogynistic she gets nothing and everything goes to her son.

But why do you consider them misogynistic? The queen did not win the throne, she married it. Why should she get to inherit the throne over their children? Especially if (as in many historical cases) she had conflicting interests, due to being from another country or having a country of her own. This is not the case in GoT, but...

I mean, if I were in a relationship, I wouldn't be working for my spouse. Would we share things? Absolutely, but if I were to die, my first priority would be to ensure my children were taken care of, not my spouse. My spouse is an adult, children are not. Does that make me a misogynist?

If such policies are misogyny, is me inheriting everything from my mother misandry? Is every trust fund sexist?

[This, of course, completely ignores the fact that none of Cersei's children belong to the king]

 

[Drolefille]

But why do you consider them misogynistic? The queen did not win the throne, she married it. Why should she get to inherit the throne over their children? Especially if (as in many historical cases) she had conflicting interests, due to being from another country or having a country of her own. This is not the case in GoT, but...

I mean, if I were in a relationship, I wouldn't be working for my spouse. Would we share things? Absolutely, but if I were to die, my first priority would be to ensure my children were taken care of, not my spouse. My spouse is an adult, children are not. Does that make me a misogynist?

If such policies are misogyny, is me inheriting everything from my mother misandry? Is every trust fund sexist?

[This, of course, completely ignores the fact that none of Cersei's children belong to the king]

Right and her adultery/incest would be enough to disinherit her, most likely any way, thus starting the war regardless.