Misogyny and chauvanism in GOT

[Phyrebrat]

*I have started watching GOT this week. I'm not a fan of fantasy and especially not that medieval-feely kind but GOT has become so big and culturally topical, I figured I should check it out.

Furthermore, it's been recommended to me many times in the past from friends who assure me that my love of character-driven shows like Battlestar Galactica will transfer to GOT. Let's face it, 7 hours later and GOT is still all character and no ...er... Action. I said to my sis - a fan- that I'm going to perservere as I'm looking forward to Winter, but her reply was 'don't hold your breath.'

The thing I'm having most problems with - and will possibly make me give up on this well-produced and spectacular show - is the treatment of women. Simply put, I find myself sickened. Seeing women objectified in such a frequent and gratuitous way - so dependant on men for any kind of achivement in their lives - and as soulless holes for the men to abuse, is shocking.

If the writer's intention is to show how women are treated there is plenty of scope for this outside of rape and debasement. Ned was telling his daughter how she would marry a rich lord, and have successful sons who would be valiant knights. He doesn't mention her having daughters or what they would do. This tells us so much about the way women are viewed in this patriarchal society and doesn't rely on rape or humiliation.

I won't be reading the books but wonder ifsomeone here could tell me if the hate-fuelled treatment of women is in ASOIAF or if this is unique to the Tv adaptation.

Either way, some writer needs to see a therapist for their views on women.

I'm going to keep on till the end of Season 1 but if something doesn't change, I'll be ghost....

pH
* to be read in a Barry Took- era Points of View voice

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I raised this once before, here. Warning, it got pretty bloody:

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/536392-grrm-and-women-characters.html


The tv series, to my mind, relished it even more than the books, and I'm afraid I had no desire to go past series 1.

 

[Nerds_feather]

The TV series amplifies all the problems of the books. The books are generally more subtle and include other stuff that the TV shows don't cover--including things that, in some cases, can contextualize the bad stuff. That isn't to say the books are problem-free--they are not. But they are much more sophisticated than the show is.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Thanks for the link, Springs. I got through to page two before there were some possible spoilers so I didn't get to the end of the thread.

Because I've not read the books, I can't make the assumption that this objectification of females lays at GRRM's feet, or the tv show's writers but as you've said, the Tv show relishes it, so I'm wondering that it's there, and that GRRM isn't perpetuating inequality or the hegemony of mankind's perpetuating of inequality.

The thing is, there's such a pornographic element to it all. I don't mean porn as in blue movies and so on, I mean it in the sense we would say, 'torture porn,' like a complicit celebration of mistreating women.

In the other thread some people were going on about era, saying medieval gender dynamics would have been like that, but that's not my point. It may have been so, but the go-to scenario seems to be let's brutalise women with sex, not 'how else can we depict the disempowerment (or unempowerment) of females'.

pH

 

[Nerds_feather]

Thanks for the link, Springs. I got through to page two before there were some possible spoilers so I didn't get to the end of the thread.

Because I've not read the books, I can't make the assumption that this objectification of females lays at GRRM's feet, or the tv show's writers but as you've said, the Tv show relishes it, so I'm wondering that it's there, and that GRRM isn't perpetuating inequality or the hegemony of mankind's perpetuating of inequality.

The thing is, there's such a pornographic element to it all. I don't mean porn as in blue movies and so on, I mean it in the sense we would say, 'torture porn,' like a complicit celebration of mistreating women.

In the other thread some people were going on about era, saying medieval gender dynamics would have been like that, but that's not my point. It may have been so, but the go-to scenario seems to be let's brutalise women with sex, not 'how else can we depict the disempowerment (or unempowerment) of females'.
pH

The show is absolutely pornographic about it--and pornographic about other forms of violence as well. Are the books as well? To a lesser degree, yes--they are still a bit "rapey," as some have said. But the books are also much, much more complex that the series. There are lots of strong women--and different kinds of strong women too. I found that, on balance, the first 3 books present a complex, troubling world at war that is quite compelling (the rails come off in books 4 and 5). There are still issues--the exoticization of non-Westerosi, said rapeyness, etc. Can't deny that. But they are less egregious than they are in the show, and there's a lot more interesting character and world-building going on that got cut from the show.

(Also, if you are interested, here's a piece I wrote about a year ago talking about general problems I have with aspects/manifestations of gritty/grimdark fantasy. For me it's all about whether the grittyness/grimdarkness does something interesting and meaningful beyond just being gritty/grimdark.)

 

[Phyrebrat]

Thanks, Nerds_feather, I will check that link out when I get a moment of quiet (or, when the students are doing some task and I can sneakily check it out)!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought what I thought. It has really been the main thing on my mind for the past 4 or 5 days. I even had a moment of desperation at the human condition ; if TV allows this to air, then it's an indictment on how society views women that this is acceptable under the banner of 'entertainment'. But that kind of philosophy would lead me down a dark 'grab sticks, men!' path so I had to consciously think of something else.

I gave the series a couple days off, but back on it yesterday to be witnessing a King smack his wife across the face and then regret them to his best mate with the qualifying statement of 'it's not kingly'. I laughed. Don't even get me started on the revoltingly over-egged lesbian scene. Who's behind this? HBO or perpetually priapic boys?

I won't be going on to Series 2 but will bear this one out.

pH

 

[Mouse]

You (and by you I mostly mean me, or women in general) get so used to the constant barrage of crap that you have to put up with just because you don't have a penis, that after a while, you quit noticing it.

I like Brienne in GOT. I like Dany. I don't mind Arya. I think there are some decent female characters in it, but yeah, a hell of a lot of it is misogynistic but a hell of a lot of many things are misogynistic. No, it's not good but most people don't care. Or they'll use the 'but that's how it was back then' argument. Yes. That's how it was. Back then in Westeros, the imaginary land.

I didn't like the lesbian scene either because it was clearly just there just because it was two hot women making out. A lot of people got deeply worked up over the Loras/Renly stuff and that wasn't gratuitous/graphic at all! Double standards, some people.

 

[purple_kathryn]

I did once express my frustration that so many fantasy series seem to feature women being raped and one of the replies was something along the lines of bad things happen to fantasy characters. Which doesn't explain why you don't men being raped all the time. It's a bad thing that usually only happens to women (obviously there are exceptions)

Personally I tend to skip past the "rapey" bits if I'm still otherwise interested in the story (and some times I can be a bit OCD about finishing a series) but it really puts me off reading a book. In fact if I knew before I started it would feature it, I probably wouldn't read it at all.

 

[Unseen Academical]

Yeah, I get it. But this was the reality for women in the Medieval era in which GOT is clearly set. Is it a bit OTT at times? yes I think so. But then i'm also sickened by Hollyoaks, Essex, Chelsea, Geordie whateveritis, Jeremy Kyle (now that's real exploitation of real people) etc

Sadly GOT is no more brutal than real life for women and for many men also, in our 'enlightened' society in the 21st Century, is the GOT TV series really the place to throw your hands up in horror, or would disgust be better targeted at REAL atrocities?

There's plenty of them to go around.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yeah, I get it.

But this was the reality for women in the Medieval era in which GOT is clearly set.

But was it? Yes, there were cultural expectations of men and women, but was the sort and amount of rapey things GOT has in it really common in the Middle Ages? I'm not sure the evidence points to that.

Also, Westeros is a fantasy world - it doesn't have to obey our world's norms for any particular period. In fantasy and world building you always have a choice - his choice was to show a brutalised world, and one in which - to my mind, and my mind only, it's up to others what they believe - women are portrayed unequally, particularly in terms of needless sex-implicit ways.

Is it a bit OTT at times? yes I think so. But then i'm also sickened by Hollyoaks, Essex, Chelsea, Geordie whateveritis, Jeremy Kyle (now that's real exploitation of real people) etc

Agreed. And they all exaggerate the amount of happenings you really would get in a typical street, town etc, as all fiction does. My concern with GRRM is an awful lot of the potentially titillating stuff, if you're of a mind, happens to the women. (The walk of shame, for instance - which I'm well aware was based on a single historical event. I can't recall any scenes where Jaime was forced to get his kit off, for instance. Sadly. )

 

[Nerds_feather]

I don't really buy into fantasy being "historically realistic" anyways. If it was, there would be endless deaths from tuberculosis, pneumonia, measles and so forth. And 70% of all scenes would take place in church pews. (Exaggerating for effect, of course, but also not really.)

I think it's fair for GRRM to create the kind of world he has, but it's a fantasy world, not a real one--and its "realism" is highly selective.

 

[Ursa major]

At least so far, GoT (and ASoIaF), has quite a lot of castration (including that of the 8000 Unsullied), but precious little FGM**. Long may that continue.








** - If there have been some examples of this, I don't want to know, thank you.

 

[Nerds_feather]

At least so far, GoT (and ASoIaF), has quite a lot of castration (including that of the 8000 Unsullied), but precious little FGM. Long may that continue.

I assume you mean the lack of FGM rather than the frequency of castration.

Of course, here's an illustration of the difference between the show and the books: in ADWD, there is some intimation that Theon Greyjoy has been at least partially castrated, though it's left uncertain; in the show, Ramsey basically says "I'm going to cut off your genitals right now" and then we were all kinds of horrible screaming.

 

[Brian G Turner]

One of the big problems with the show is that HBO have invented a whole load of sex for the story to effectively turn GoT into soft porn, while also turning up the blood splatter.

No, the mediaeval world was not as bad as that for exploiting women - it could be far worse. But GoT follows high-status characters who will be less subject to that.

Yes, GRRM does create a good variety of women characters who are arguably representative of the period, yet strong - Catelyn, Arya, Sansa, Brienne, Cersei, immediately come to mind.

Yes, GRRM does fall for male-gazing his characters - Daenerys notices her small breasts when she puts new clothes on.

No, GRRM did not write the character Ros in the books, or detail what happened in whore houses in graphic detail. There's mention of sex, but no erotic fiction - certainly nothing like Clan of the Cave Bear.

 

[Ursa major]

Of course, here's an illustration of the difference between the show and the books: in ADWD, there is some intimation that Theon Greyjoy has been at least partially castrated, though it's left uncertain; in the show, Ramsey basically says "I'm going to cut off your genitals right now" and then we were all kinds of horrible screaming.

The stuff in the books about Reek** is far more unsettling, to my mind. At least the show didn't let one's imagination stray too far. *gulp*


** - Reek as in R!

 

[Nerds_feather]

The stuff in the books about Reek** is far more unsettling, to my mind. At least the show didn't let one's imagination stray too far. *gulp*


** - Reek as in R!

The torture stuff with Theon is all in ADWD. In the show, it's moved to the first part of ASOS. Curious what that entails going forward. It may get much, much worse.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm pretty sure that there's no scope for what I was imagining.

 

[svalbard]

The torture stuff with Theon is all in ADWD. In the show, it's moved to the first part of ASOS. Curious what that entails going forward. It may get much, much worse.

Timescale wise it is probably happening at the same time as events in ASOS as Theon's story is absent from the third book.

 

[Unseen Academical]

Yeah, I get it.

But was it? Yes, there were cultural expectations of men and women, but was the sort and amount of rapey things GOT has in it really common in the Middle Ages? I'm not sure the evidence points to that.

Also, Westeros is a fantasy world - it doesn't have to obey our world's norms for any particular period. In fantasy and world building you always have a choice - his choice was to show a brutalised world, and one in which - to my mind, and my mind only, it's up to others what they believe - women are portrayed unequally, particularly in terms of needless sex-implicit ways.




Agreed. And they all exaggerate the amount of happenings you really would get in a typical street, town etc, as all fiction does. My concern with GRRM is an awful lot of the potentially titillating stuff, if you're of a mind, happens to the women. (The walk of shame, for instance - which I'm well aware was based on a single historical event. I can't recall any scenes where Jaime was forced to get his kit off, for instance. Sadly. )

No idea how one is supposed to make an empirical comparison between what happened hundred of years ago and what happens in an a TV show. The Forest laws were pretty brutal, blindings and mutilation were written into law. Medieval life was brutal, GOT is brutal.

If you want to say GRRM hasn't dealt with the notion of justice then ok.

Fantasy doesn't have to stick to any norms, but it's also not reality, it's a TV show, no-one is actually being raped and mutilated and therefore GRRM is free to present his world the way he sees it, under the guidelines set down by whatever bodies regulate TV and novies. And it is an 18 rated show after all.

So you'd be happier is Jamie got his tackle out as well? I saw a campaign video by some American women on Pat's Fantasy Hotlist demanding there was more penis on show, and I think there has been.

I see what you're saying but I'm afraid inequality in nudity is a cultural norm, it's not much use berating GOT for it, especially when it's the best thing on TV. I'd take issue first in crappy Hollywood movies.

PS - What do you think the reaction would have been if they'd tortured a woman in the same manner, not just the mutilation, but the relentless endless suffering he went through and the psychological damage inflicted? I think there would have been absolute outrage, but as it was Theon no-one really made a big deal of it.

I think you've got a point but it's not as one sided as you think.

 

[Coolhand]

So you'd be happier is Jamie got his tackle out as well? I saw a campaign video by some American women on Pat's Fantasy Hotlist demanding there was more penis on show, and I think there has been.)

I think that would be an excellent solution to any perceived inequality when it comes to the onscreen nudity in GOT. If we can show the insides of a man's body being splattered around in exquisite detail, it seems only fair to show the outside as well. I do sympathise greatly with female actors who complain that they're expected to get their kit off for the love scenes and bare all, but their male counterpart in a scene will always be covered to some degree. Personally, I think if a TV show is shown to an adult audience, and makes the artistic choice to depict sex realistically, then it's only fair the pendulum (ahem) swings (oh err) both ways (don'tcha know). It's a lot easier to defend that choice from an artistic point of view.