Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
It's not exactly healthy is it?
I still haven't. I'm so cool.
did nothing for me.
you don't know anything, wza
(^that's a catchphrase from the show)
the one where Hermione goes to Mordor was ok.
the board game is pretty sexist tbf. I'm the only woman.
why would you do this
Leave Game of Thrones ALLLLONNNESS
the bad bits only happen when they try to chase ratings imo. I get the feeling that the scriptwriters understand how to write for women in a positive way, might be wrong though idk
I was joking, this turned into an actual thread, FS
It's great. But all these compliant prostitutes who get traded like meat but love pleasing men. Not a great signal to send out. I'm certainly respecting women less since I got into it.
which is nice to see.
but at some point in italy wasn't being a prostitute not actually that bad a thing for a woman to do? You got housed, fed etc in probably a nicer place than anywhere else a commoner could've lived, you're protected from harm, earn a decent-ish wage and so on. Its pretty easy to imagine how in a feudal/highly unequal society, where prostitution is widely accepted, being a prostitute would probably make you relatively happy, compared to what you would be if you were doing anything else (farming i guess).
The show makes it repeatedly obvious that they're trained to convince people they enjoy it.
which is bad
in a lot of places not that great in ye olde times?
it is set in 'ye olde times' is it not?
But Star Wars is set in the past! Crazy.
GRRM just calling it like he sees it.
good, this kind of stuff needs that degree of believability
then ... *head explodes*
Those flimsy bits of fabric the prostitutes wear really gross me out
They should get rid of them
I like Marjorie's dresses
I just call them all it apart from Arya, Daenaeris, Brienne and Cersai like the writers want me too
Nice dress though you're right
Stop being sexist by singling out the treatment of women
they are characters on my telly and so not really actual people and so i'm not too worried. if it was a documentary i'd be ruddy well up in arms.
so that I could be there when people challenge him at the Edinburgh festival. Didn't get tickets though and I bet a bunch of nerds did.
if so i can give her a list of probing questions to ask on your behalf
but it does make me mildly uncomfortably how many people are like 'it's great how much sexy sex there is in that game of thrones, eh?'. now personally i'm a big fan of gratuitous sex scenes, but i am less a fan of either a) brutal rape scenes or b) scenes that mainly involve disposable anonymous prostitutes being fondled or just hanging around pointlessly while fully clothed men have conversations that develop the plot. and pretty sure those two things account for about 70% of GoT sex. so when people are like GAME OF THRONES IS REALLY HOT it's always a bit ummmmmmm
Yeah I read the first couple of chapters on my kindle (preview) and it's way more sinister than the tv series.
I mean Danaerys' (sp) story is pretty rum in the TV show (sold for marriage, learns to please her man, falls in love with him), but it's a whole different dimension when she's 13!
if I say that's far too annoying to read is that tone policing or something
the books aren't just set in "Ye Olde Medieval Europe" - they're set in a fantasy world in which people's relationships with and conceptions of nature, the passage of time, the family, childhood 'innocence', the economy, 'race', religion... are unlike the real world or anything from history.
e.g. just saying "Again: DAENERYS IS 13 YEARS OLD. We are treated to several graphic, eroticized scenes of a 13-year-old child “having sex” with and “falling in love” with a grown man." I don't think really captures that. Being 13 in ASoIaF is different from irl.
"It's all a fantasy so it's ok".
You could say pretty much the same thing about Robin Thicke.
but he's not (right?)
I certainly wasn't saying "It's all a fantasy so it's ok".
But it is fantasy and is set in a world with quite a different sociohistorical context and I think it has to be interrogated with that in mind. Take the issue of 'race' in GoT for example. racism in the real world is a historically contingent phenomenon, right? 'race' has socially constructed over time and has had different meanings in different times and places. therefore it's possible to imagine that in the alternative universe of game of thrones, racism may be constructed quite differently.
for the men. And yes that may be in a tolkien(ish) fantasy world but it's contemporary 14 year old boys that are wanking themselves silly over it.
or many other fantasy or sci-fi books?
what if I'm wanking myself silly over it? is that ok?
where a man and a woman are seen 'choosing' prostitutes together and asking the 'whores' about their own sexuality. kinda bringing into question the more prevalent depiction "compliant whores" as "compliant playthings" for (exclusively )men.
just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the Martells and their enthusiastic, pervy attitudes bd
by the fact that they practice absolute primogeniture rather than male-preference cognatic primogeniture?
is there anything to suggest what the relationship between their inheritance laws and sexuality is?
I generally think the Martells are really cool and offer a slightly different way of looking at the politics in GoT. Like when Oberyn contrasts Dorne with other kingdoms and points out how horrible many of the "customs" are and offers ways of imagining a better Westeros <3
but Dorne definitely treats women better in a basic political sense (though this doesn't guarantee them an easier time of things) which I think impacts on how they are involved in society. Dorne is heavily influenced by the culture of the Rhoynar rather than the Andals which populated the rest of Westeros (as well as the First Men in the north), and the person who bought the Rhoynar from the Rhoyne to Westeros was Nymeria, a powerful queen (who Arya names her direwolf after), so even in their foundation myths they place women in a role of power and respect. I don't think the other kingdoms do that, you can even look at their religion, where the faith venerates seven figures which subdivide women into crones/mothers etc.
but which isn't square with your own morals and ideals. Which is fine, but it's difficult to say it for GoT and then not apply the same to everything else.
I don't know, is GoT really that different from something like Mad Men in how it's conceived and constructed?
It revels in sexism as part of the story and pretends that it's about the emancipation of the female characters while it's really about reminding the audience that men are really in charge.
GoT doesn't make any pretence: men are trained to be warriors in the main and women aren't. The books have more horrific moments than the TV show does but, equally, there is far less gratuitousness. The TV show runners specifically courted 'sexposition' in an attempt to keep ratings hight, and it worked: Season 4 of GoT was very light on the whole whores and sex side of things, apart from the Martells, who are shown as caring little for the conventional sexual appetites the early seasons had. On the other hand, they continually try to go for rape when the books don't cover any such thing, which adds a layer of horror that need not be there.
GoT is really murky when it comes to its female characters. It obviously has some very strong and powerful female characters too. I'm not sure if that means it's okay.
But it's interesting to discuss this. I don't really recall these conversations coming up around The Sopranos, which is chock full of this kind of female exploitation and large slabs of excessive sexism, but maybe we just accept it now.
That the more removed/fantastical the setting of a television show the more prepared people are to address sexism (or any social issues) in the show. The more modern or realistic a story is it seems the social conflicts are more ingrained to the audience and we're less likely to question it. Coronation Street is probably full of problems like that.
as it allows more scope for metaphor and allegory.
For me modern/realistic settings in literature and art (trainspotting, tracey emin) seems to challenge assumptions more than fantasy based stuff. Science fiction though, I can see it there. In tv it's inverted as far as I can tell, and it may have something to do with its visceral nature. I'm indulging in huge genre broad brushstrokes anyway so it's bound to be personal opinion it was just a thought.
Sopranos, for example, showed female characters being exploited, and men with sexist atitudes, but I don't really think it glamourised those who did the exploiting, or made them seem attractive for doing so.
It is a very male-dominated show, sure, and it certainly fits into the template of critically-acclaimed, male-oriented 'serious' show (as opposed to the relentlessly dismissed female-oriented dramas on TV), but it would have been completely out of place for a drama about the italian-american mafia (who are portrayed as conservative and out of time) to not include that.
Again with Mad Men, and if we take your summary of what it's really about - I don't think it seeks to uphold this as an ideal. If anything, it shows us how it's not, and how, actually, we still have a long way to go today.
particularly Dr Melfis character Spppppooopopooilers
when she admits to fancying Tony a bit and her (sexual) fascination with him. We're definitely encouraged to see tony in a sympathetic (albeit "complex" cf don drapers character which i got so so bored with by about s3. oooo hes so DEEEP)light throughout, imo. I absolutely love the female characters in the sopranos though, especially Carmella. Also I think people take it too seriously and forget how funny it can be and obviously it's playing with various cliches and callbacks to other things.
always seemed out of place to me in the sopranos. like there needs to be some sort of explanation for why some people could find him attractive and that that's the explanation given is like looking behind the curtain and seeing loads of balding hairy white men hammering away at their keyboards.
that's all i can say in this thread about this mysterious show about sword guys
than the programme itself. The show demonstrated the impotence of Tony and (despite his ascent from capo to boss) the increasing powerlessness of his position, and increasing irrelevance. If viewers wanted to idolise that, then I don't think you can pin it on the writers.
As for in the show, I don't think it's hard to see why the women who are attracted to Tony are, at least, initially. Aside from Carmella, none of them are for long though.
it's definitely the writing. like his power is obviously something that can be attractive and that works for the most part early on but with dr melfi, gloria, adriana and the jamba juice woman (can't remember her name)... it's too much. more than anything else in the show his run with women seems unrealistic. the women don't even seem to question whether it'd be a good idea at all. if anything he seems to be more successful with women as he loses power and his health fades. it's really tiresome by the last series.
Dr Melfi's attraction is only fleeting (in the first series), and Gloria, Adriana and Julianna have serious (albeit currently managed) mental health issues when they hook up with Tony.
It's only the (very very brief) flirtation with Julianna that happens in the latter seasons though, isn't it (I can't remember)?
I think it glamourised them as much as GoT does. In both shows we have examples of violent, misogynistic, nasty men who we are given as anti-heroes. And we see them commit crimes to women and yet still they are seen to be having lots of sexual & romantic encounters and never really get their comeuppance.
There is a lot of calling women 'cunts' in the Sopranos and lots of use of domestic violence as just something that happens.
I'm not saying this isn't accurate in its portrayal but I find it interesting that DD is being pulled up for saying GoT has a historic backdrop (albeit a fantastic one) that it 'lives up to' as if she can't reconcile this with 'real world aspirations'. Because I doubt anyone would really apply the same questions if she said she was a big fan of The Sopranos. That's how it feels, anyway.
No, it's definitely not. If anything it only becomes apparent in the 2nd series.
But for me there isn't a great deal of difference between the two... In a sense they both glorify and glamourise to a certain extent patriarchal attitudes. Maybe GoT is more outwardly fantastical and less 'documentary' than Mad Men, but the end point is the same: "It's a man's world"
I'm sure you read this.. http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/06/dov-charney-terry-richardson-and-misogynistic-truth-about-hipster-cool
There's one line which jumped out at me from it which made me think of things like Mad Men and implicitly other TV series... "With their 70s porn star aesthetic seems to come this notion that they’re only subjugating women ironically". That's precisely what Mad Men and GoT tap into in some ways, this idea that because it is "retro" or "fantastical" we can reproduce it and it's not seen as being necessarily serious, but more ironic or constructed. I'm not sure GRRM had a specific plan to reveal sexism when he created his universe.
(I do like GoT and I don't think it's necessarily a bad or sexist programme but I find a lot of it kinda problematic having made a concerted effort to be a bit more feminist and critical in my attitudes to my surroundings)
but I think it also raises quite interesting questions about things like stratification and gender relations. in the same I think a lot of fantasy and sci-fi does because sometimes they provide new vistas for looking at things. I think the gratuitous violence in GoT is pretty indefensible though. Some of the changes from the book are just pointless and seem to be designed to titilate I actually skip a lot of the new violent scenes in GoT and get someone to fill me in on them.
Battlestar Galactica is one excellent example.
Just to take medieval Europe as an example...girls were often married off when they were as young as 12 years old and they generally had very little choice in the matter, because the marriages were generally arranged by the child's parents.
Obvs, this doesn't mean that it's all good yo' but it does point to Martin's depiction of life in Westeros not being entirely his own invention.
things would be in Generic Fantasy World (tm), rather than actual medieval wherever?
not mega impressed by the rapey set-dressing, but generally am of the belief It's Ok To Enjoy Problematic Things as long as you're mindful and critical of them idk
anyway clearly what this thread needed was another dude's opinion!
Please regard this thread as my hand-wringing acknowledgement.
e.g. the War of the Roses and the name "Westeros".
But it definitely is meant to be a different world with very different societies. People clearly have unique beliefs and ways of interpreting the world (e.g. their religions and ideas about the supernatural are very different from actual medieval religion). I think it's interesting to look at how oppressive power is constituted in an imaginary world. The fact that the author seems to have effectively transposed many real oppressive power structures (patriarchy, racism) as if they are natural 'givens' rather than as a result of particular historical developments, is interesting. Doesn't make it "ok" or squared with my "morals and ideals" as lemonbrickcombo put it.
Virtually every fantasy writer does it.
Far more interesting are fantasy novelists who come up with different heirarchies of control, oppression and persecution, and are able to write about them effectively.
cause very few (cant really think of any) actually construct alternative histories based on meticulously research about the medieval/ancient world. I find asoiaf more interesting as a way of looking at our own social world cause its different but not *that* different. Also I think you've maybe misunderstood what I'm saying - Im not saying he's taken, for example, our own patriarchal gender relations and given them to his world exactly as they are, lots of things have been modified and reimagined.
Idk have you read the books? I sort of find it hard to believe when people read them and aren't at least interested.
Decent but nothing to bust a nut over. Standard sword n dragons po-faced Tolkein tribute given a bit of polish. Sorry.
I mean it's perfectly engaging and he's not a terrible writer or anything. But "read a few books on what I'm basing my setting on" is about the minimum I'd expect from a fiction writer. He's tied together a bunch of things people like - old school political intrigue, kings and queens, a reasonably well-thought-out world outside of ours so we don't have to think about how shit ours is, shagging - and presented it in a digestible form. Fair play to him, but the way you and others carry on you'd think he'd done something really new and interesting. He hasn't. I don't rate him higher than Ursula le Guin.
1. ursula le guin
2. philip pullman
that's it. that's all of them.
but oh man i just remembered how much i used to love philip pullman. i'm scared to reread his dark materials in case it's not as perfect as i remember
"cause very few (cant really think of any) actually construct alternative histories based on meticulously research about the medieval/ancient world"
Loads do, in fact I would say that most do.
Assimov did a set of short stories set in the Byzantine empire
From a more modern perspective, Philip K Dick too (Man in the high Castle)
Memoirs of Hadrian is a really good book
I don't think any of the books you've mentioned there fall into the same category (and I am a fan of pkd)
like, you've included the Lord of the Rings and Narnia in that so we're obviously not talking about the same thing.
but what about it fails your "construct alternative histories based on meticulously [sic] research about the medieval/ancient world" test?
and has pretty much no resemblance to anything from history
And is rooted in Norse history and mythology.
As I say, I don't particularly like Lord Of The Rings, and I do like ASOIAF, but the latter isn't quite as unique as you seem to think it is.
needs more love
you can get away with as many gratuitous rape scenes as you like. Wouldn't get away with it on Mrs Brown's Boys.
^hasn't seen the Mrs Brown's Boys film
Can have a problematic portrayal, sure, but not an attitude.
on the whole I'd say it's a fairly realistic depiction of how unequal/patriarchal societies functioned historically.
Think I'm getting too old for dragons and chain mail and stuff
It's just zzz
But having seen a picture of the guy I think I wouldn't be at all surprised if his story shows pretty clear signs of sexual frustration
and has some Strong Female Characters, with whom you sympathise for how unfair their situations are.
gratuitous sex tho
not-watching game of thrones as weird bragging rights. It's really easy to not watch something. In fact it's probably the easiest thing in the world STOP BRAGGING
some of them are let off. SOME.
then I actually watched Breaking Bad, GoT et al.
Still not SAD enough to watch the Wire though losers.
bet it's shit
even tho it's probably terrible
watch it. I'm not buying Mrs Coach in it though, there's no fire in her belly in this, she basically plays the same character but her realistic acting makes her look a bit bland in this farce.
like a Latin American soap opera.
Far too busy for Game of Pricks
Sometimes I count how many panels are on the ceiling
I am a Tree > Hot Freaks > Amnesiac > My Valuable Hunting Knife> Game of Pricks >>> In Rainbows
Just Sean Bean eating cauliflower and cheese all day
He doesn't make it to the end though.
or pop music though, innit?
Being vocal about not being bothered about something is pretty much the still_here calling card.
because i think it's important not to care about them, not cos i'm bragging
(If They Have Time)
so is this actually worth watching, looks a bit silly
it's shit really.
I knew it
my wife made me watch the majority of season 2
she's no longer my wife, but the show was pretty absorbing and the script had its moments
Random page. First paragraph had the N word of it and also spoke of 'white trash'. Why are educated people in 2014 reading /watching something that appears to have been written by a grumpy racist American in the 50s (actual release date 1986)?
probably all the gratituous sex tbh tbf
He likes using niggardly, but that's not the same word.
Are you just trolling?
When you figure out what book it is you actually opened and read a random paragraph of, please let us know. Please. I'm begging you.
creepy misunderstood characters who appear at crucial moments... it's practically the same thing.
You patronising piece of shit. It ws a Game if thrones book, one i have sold hundreds of copies of. Try reading it again you brainwashed bell end.
I just look at that (reprints will say recent dates for books from 60 years ago). The release date of the first was 1991 but he could well have copyrighted it in 1986.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a series of epic fantasy novels written by American novelist and screenwriter George R. R. Martin. Martin began the first volume of the series, A Game of Thrones, in 1991. It was first published in 1996.
very disappointed in this subthread because it made me laugh but either you're trolling or delusional, as opposed to amusingly wrong
can someone with the ebook look this one up, then?
Cntrl+f, settle this once and for all.
there's a million pieces out there about race in ASOIAF, but no mention of him using the N word.
I'm not going to get dragged into such obvious bants on the part of OTS.
this is sexy_girl and whatever she was before that.
Well then she's clearly just taking the piss.
Best telling off I ever got.
You've still got the wrong books, mind.
I need this.
came on here for some light relief (not wanking) before bed and you're all discussing the sexual politics of the sopranos at 1 AM
sort it out
but the 'attitude' to women in the narrative is a bit more complicated than that, innit.
What strikes me when watching the show and reading the books is how utterly fucking shit it would be to a member of the small folk majority, and then how utterly fucking shit the lives of the millions of real people from historical areas the show parallels actually were.
Not to come over all WORKERS UNITE but, honestly, life is still pretty hopeless for the 'small folk' of our society, even if they don't make up as huge a section of the population as they would have done in medieval times, maybe.
barely seen any discussion of this stuff anywhere else online tbh
Anything that gets a lot of replies is critiqued as too navel gazing or boring or too tryhard/indie/pseudointellectual
Don't get me wrong it's good there are people ready to give threads more perspective
But it's just so DiS.
can't believe I wasn't following it.
Recruiting for a role, a candidate has referenced A Dance With Dragons in their application. I forgo reading the rest of their application, anyone else's application, interviews and decades of career development and just put them in charge of the place, right?
^ check out this sexist pig. Probably had his mind warped by G.R.R.M.
have applied then you would already have had them in for an interview to try to finger them.
where he talks about being forced to add in extra gratuitous nudity by the producers to titilate the pervert contigent of the audience. or something. ...
most of the actual female characters are pretty decently written though
that's all I've got
Nearly all the female characters have to get their tits out with no relevance to the plot
Never any cock on show
It's great but it's useless defending it on this count.
Unfortunately it was Theon and Hodor's
They must be blink and you'll miss it kind of things
Still, to redress the balance we pretty much need to see all the male characters' cocks. ERECT COCKS.
and theon's was suspiciously un-erect* having just withdrawn
*though respectable in size.
petition.org - MORE ERECT COCKS IN GoT PLEASE
actually only one female director, who's done 4 episodes. statement: RETRACTED
Than a Michael Fabricant tweet, so it seems strange you'd be offended by one and not the other...
The discussion here though is whether GOT is more doing it as 'art' or to make a point about violence against women, which is at least debatable, whereas Fabricant was just being himself
Also outside of influencing other individuals, it's fair to say Fabricant has more influence on a helping-run-the-country level
I'm put off by both tbf tbh
Well ridiculously reductive comparisons can have that effect on people.
When Arya asked Brienne if she was a knight, and Brienne laughed it off and said no.
Like, 'of course not, don't be silly. All I do is fight bravely, act honourably, uphold vows and go on quests to rescue the innocent! Not like a knight at all.'
Brienne is blatantly the best character at being a knight in the whole thing, and the fact she isn't/can't be one is just a little reminder of how the deck is stacked against women. She beat Loras, rescued Jaime, found Arya (for like a minute) and took out the Hound: quite a CV. She's also quite patient with Pod (even after the silly sod lost their horses).
When she laughs at the suggestion of her being a knight, it's her internalising the bias against women. You want to yell, 'no, you are a knight! You're the best! Go and tell Jaime he has to knight you OR ELSE!'
Asking for a friend.
This time last year. Might go back to that.
Has Cersei had her lesbian dalliance in the TV show?
(Taena doesn't even exist).
Similarly Dany doesn't have her lesbian dalliance either.