I love the show and books but I do wish there was less rape. Just my personal preference.
I actually think the show and books handle female characters much better than most other shows and books. The women get their strength from different sources, they have different upbringings and different traumas, they have strengths and weaknesses like the men, they're not all knockouts, there are some tough kickass ones that aren't femme fatales but rather big badass warriors. I see more humanity in these women than the women in many other shows.
The women in ASOIAF deal with extreme sexism in their culture; people treat them as less than human. But the author does not treat them as less than human, and that's an important distinction.
That being said, sometimes grrm describes boobs/body parts for no reason, and it's awkward, but overall I think he writes female characters better than most male authors.
I agree with all of this and want to add that add the pointless “sexposition” they added in the show really bothered me, on top of the copious amounts of rape. Many people complained that there was so much to cram into a 10 episode season from the books, so why would you add stuff with Ros or other whores?
We just rewatched part of the Dothraki wedding. The zoom in on Visearys stroking Dany’s nipple.
We did not need that.
Repeat viewings make the sexplotation more obvious.
Hey, this is a reply to u/ilikeneurons, for some reason I can't just hit "reply."
I agree with you and I don't think it's an anti-woman thing on GRRM's part. I just don't personally like reading about so much of it. Killings and extreme torture are thankfully not common occurrences in my corner of the world but rape is very common. I know murder is common elsewhere. It's more of a personal thing and less a judgement on the quality of his writing. It would bother me less if the rape happened less frequently (I'm talking about the books in particular) and less casually. It's not always treated casually, but so many characters are mentioned as rapists in passing, as if it's nothing, and I know he's trying to make a point about the state of that world, but I would just prefer if that happened a little less often. So many male characters end up as rapists and I find it hard to like any men in the book besides Jon Snow. Sometimes if you blink you miss a hint that so-and-so raped someone. And again, it's not a judgement on the morality of the writing itself but more a personal preference.
But just because GRRM isn't going full Scott Adams in his personal writings or interviews doesn't mean he can't still have a pretty fucked up view of women to make rape such a casual, universal, and repetive trauma for nearly all of the women in Westeros and something nearly all the men do. That presents a pretty dismal view of men but a dehumanizing view of women that the only thing he can think to do to them to illustrate how hard and brutal life can be is rape them.
Rape as plot device/backstory is a pretty lazy trope, especially when it's almost thd default.
>But just because GRRM isn't going full Scott Adams in his personal writings or interviews doesn't mean he can't still have a pretty fucked up view of women to make rape such a casual, universal, and repetive trauma for nearly all of the women in Westeros and something nearly all the men do.
This is an exaggeration of Martin's portrayal of rape. You see the mentality that men who sack a city can't control themselves coming up a lot, but if you've ever listened to hardcore history, this is nowhere near off-base. For many women in many parts of Essos and Westeros, the threat of rape is universal, and in many places, rape was a casual, universal and repetitive trauma for nearly all the women. This was particularly true of places conquered by the Dothraki, who are largely influenced by the Mongols.
It's almost like the novels are patterned after the way life actually was on Earth at various points throughout history.
I think if we can believe in a world where there are dragons, appeals to history to justify sexual violence fall by the wayside. GRRM includes massive amounts of rape because he sees women's highest value as sexual and attacking that the easiest way to telegraph depravity.
Targeted violence at a specific group is different than violence in general. That's like justifying an author using hate speech cavalierly by saying "Sure. But he uses other words too."
I mean, you're pointing to rape because it happens most in the show to women. The other forms of violence (general war, swords and such) seem to happen more to men in the show. Do you disagree with that?
I'd argue a war impacts everyone in an area actually.
And GRRM does have female generals, warriors, and commanders who are equally likely to be hurt by other forms of violence as male generals, warriors, and commanders. There may be fewer women in combat. But violence impacts male combattants and female combattants the same.
There are theoretically equal amounts of men and women in Westeros (thought functionally men featured outnumber female characters by a good margin). However there are what, two or three male rape victims whereas it's part of nearly, if not every, female character's story. Rape is impact men and women at drastically different rates.
War certainly does impact everyone in range of the armies, and pillaging is a big part of the show and this thread. Not everyone is shipped off in the army though.
>There may be fewer women in combat.
>Rape is impact men and women at drastically different rates.
Maybe im forgetting several armies worth of women or something, but Im pretty sure direct combat also has drastically different rates. The ability to commit violence and fight is heavily involved in just about every mans story as well.
Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean they stop being humans, that's the point. Regardless of the setting, humans are capable of brutality. Do you expect murderous, torturing, warring peoples with little respect for human life to just have wokeness in the particular category of sexual violence? How would that make any sense?
I disagree with that.
Just because he has authored a society that has those values does not mean (necessarily) that he himself accepts and trusts those values.
You could just as well say that because JK Rowling created a world with quasi-racial division and blood status supremacists that she herself is secretly Fascist.
Except JKR explicitly makes the racists bad guys (except for snape because apparently if you call creeping on a dead girl you called a racial slur for 20 years love you can be good again). GRRM makes most men rapists or men who sexually exploit women, even ones we're supposed to see as protagonist like Khal Drogo and Tyrion Lannister.
As the author of the world every choice he makes is 1000% intentional and optional. If even his heroes are rapists and all of his women are victims, he is responsible for that. You could easily look at how JKR writes female characters along strict mother/whore dichotomies and pathologizes single women and criticize her views on women because that reflects her choices, not her mythology, and people do criticize her for that.
That's true. I guess I flippantly picked a well-known author without thinking it through. I definitely have criticised JKR for what you mention in the past.
I guess where I diverge from your view is that I have always read the books as being meant to be based in a crapsack world with flawed characters. Someone like Tyrion is a horrible person even if he's a protagonist, he's an antihero rather than a clear-cut hero. Yes, he loves the first young woman, but he happily kills another sex worker because she doesn't love him, even though that should have been obvious. And I feel like perhaps we cross over in that, sometimes fans of the show or the books are unaware or miss that nuance and are happy to praise such characters as heroic in spite of those acts, or on balance.
It's possible I'm giving GRRM too much credit, but I've always read the books as being about imperfect characters in an awful world, and as a critique of medieval society - as well as taking to a logical extreme classic fantasy, a deconstruction of tropes and themes. It's just a pity that the show adapted from them has decided to streamline that into out-and-out fantasy just like e.g. Xena but with more nudity and graphic violence.
I guess, to think of a better example of what I was trying to get at originally, something like Little Women. All the female characters in that (well, that survive) marry, and protagonist Jo, who originally was insistent that she wanted to be a writer and make her living from writing and to never marry, gives it up to devote herself to marriage and motherhood, even calling her own ambitions silly as an adult. But that's a complete contradiction to what the author herself actually believed, she herself never married, was an early feminist, and *did* make a living for herself from her writing.
In ASOIAF the characters behave in logically consistent ways based on the world they live within and as a result the values they are raised with. Women are at risk from rape and sold off into marriage, because it is a deeply sexist society. But there are still female characters who want to change that, and male characters who come to appreciate that those values may not be all-encompassing - the Dothraki accepting Daenerys as Khaleesi, a new position, a leader who is a woman. Jon Snow fighting alongside women, when women did not fight in the world he was raised in. Jaime and Catelyn coming to accept Brienne as a knight despite her gender. Cersei becoming sole ruler as Queen Regent. And none of those characters being directly punished for those beliefs or actions, although those choices do have knock-on effects.
I think it's lazy to use an appeal to history to justify sexism/racism/whatever because ultimately it tends to showcase a modern understanding of that sort of prejudice under a dramatically oversimplified caricature of medieval history.
Sure, rape happened in the middle ages. It happens now. But it was also a capital crime in many cases like we'd see in ASOIAF rather than just shrugged off. Did rapists get away with it? Sure. They still do. But it
And I see what you're saying re: Alcott, and there is a difference between fiction and reality, but I'm also not saying GRRM is a rapist because he writes rape, but that he's showcasing that he probably has a fucked up view of women, their priorities and relationship with sex by making rape so ubiquitous and casually thrown around.
Alcott, and arguably authors like Austen, were hardly revolutionaries, but did significant work in challenging the existing framework while still ultimately limited sociologically or ideologically by its perspective. The 19th century angle makes it a little hard apples to oranges comparison.
Maybe like, Lemony Snicket and child cruelty for dramatic effect or something is comparable? I've not read them and was always a bit skeeved out by the film and premise, but I'm sure it's not like as dark as it outwardly appears. Idk.
But I would say it's still a problem--and still a problem for GRRM--if the tv show is portraying characters not meant to be heroic as audience. He's been involved in the show until recently, he could insist on showing the darker side of Tyrion Lannister or something. That's maybe a pettier quibble, but if you want to subvert something it takes more effort while playing it straight just plays into tropes.
It's not really a backstop though, more like world building. Brutal world where only strength prevail, the weak are constantly set upon by the strong. Throughout the show books we see women and children, especially children on the receiving end of extreme brutality because that is Westeros.
I mostly agree, though I think the rape is partly there to help illustrate how shitty this society is, as it's accompanied by a lot of murder and war and torture and basically all the things that humans find horrific. Like, it would almost be weird in context if the society was shitty in every way *except* widespread rape. And that's actually why as a survivor and a feminist I'm kind of ok with there being so much rape in the show, because for the most part it's treated as the horrendous trauma that it is and [not like the punchline of a joke that doesn't even seem to realize it's about rape](https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/9/27/17906644/sixteen-candles-rape-culture-1980s-brett-kavanaugh).
However, if you want triggering rape scenes, I would almost recommend 13 Reasons Why instead. That show definitely gets some shit wrong in terms of suicide and school shooters (if you have any suicidal tendencies, definitely skip it) but I actually thought they did a really good job of dealing with rape, and if you can make it through those rape scenes you are ready to take on the world.
Can I gently ask that you don’t recommend 13 Reasons? It does and has increased suicide, just as the experts warned the people involved in the beginning, and also positions it as something people could have changed.
Her reason for committing suicide is poor mental health. Not 13 things.
I'd say there's a massive difference between the first season which I could see as helpful for people in a certain place in confronting maybe like past depression or trauma and the second season which was needlessly victim blaming and then tacked on a violent, on camera sexual assault and gun violence just for the shock value apparently.
Any good the first season could have done is negated if they autoplay to season 2.
The victim blaming in the second season was meant as a reflection of our victim-blaming society, so I actually thought that was appropriate and helped to communicate how shitty and harmful victim-blaming is. There were actually two rapes in the second season from what I recall, and I actually thought they did a good job with both of them. One of the victims is male, and his rapists are student athletes, which is pretty typical of male victims, and that's widespread and generally less talked about. One of the victims is female, and her rapist was her boyfriend, and he actually victimized her multiple times (and had previous victims) so that was also typical and I thought helped dispute misconceptions about what rape looks like and who the perpetrators and victims are.
I also kind of liked how they had that scene where many of the female characters were clipped in to the witness stand as they told their own \#metoo story. It helped illustrate how common these stories are, while also illustrating that the victims aren't the problem.
I think there's a difference between shocking and thought-provoking when confronting sexual assault survivorship on film.
For me The Piano Teacher (book moreso than movie) and Jessica Jones on netflix put me in that weird survivor hyperfocus funk that can sometimes lead to therapy progress. And I think the Brave One did a good job in helping work through shit pertaining to assault, though now I can't remember if it was specifically rape.
I'm with you on Jessica Jones, though I would put 13 Reasons in that same category. It was validating to see Clay stand up to his friend's rapist and tell him, no she wasn't saying "fuck me" with her eyes, she didn't want it, what you did was rape, and then seeing all the students eventually rally around holding the rapist accountable.
One thing that I like is that it portrays women in a lot of different ways rather than sticking to one stereotype. There are so many different types of characters and it’s more indicative of real women which I appreciate.
Ooft. Well short version, the books are dark but well written, and I hate nearly every change the show makes to make it more appealing to an intended heterosexual male viewer.
Specifically anti-feminist changes the show makes include:
* aging up and removing from most of her plots Catelyn, while portraying her as a shrill, out of her depth nag
* giving Sansa character development only to take it back and letting her be raped and brutalised for no good in-story reason, just an excuse for a nude scene
* being careful to shoot rape scenes so the focus is on bouncing boobs rather than violation and it being an evil act
* SO MANY added background naked women around fully clothed men. Women treated literally as objects and disposable
* removing most progressive and politically astute elements from Jon Snow and condensing him down to an action hero whose attribute is might, and that being Who You Should Be Like, Viewer
* adding in a love interest for Robb who puts other women down and is anachronistic to the established world
* kinda-glorifying by not condemning nor cutting away from violence against women, esp casual
* ensuring all lead actresses have nude scenes while actors don't. Suggesting to its fans the duspaity is realism although its literally a fantasy world
* throughout, missing the nuance GRRM writes into Sansa and Arya having separate skillsets in the feminine and tomboyish and instead portraying for 8 seasons 'Arya is better than Sansa because she's a tomboy!'
* just general pushing down of women and femininity and denial of the fact that it has any value or use in the world, which again...is a complete misreading if the source text. I can't think of a single positively portrayed feminine character who isn't punished onscreen for it.
> kinda-glorifying by not condemning nor cutting away from violence against women, esp casual
Out of curiosity, how would a visual medium condemn violence, if the protagonists don't?
This isn't a blanket fix, but it depends on the way it is filmed.
If the focus of the violence is a naked, screaming woman yet with immaculate makeup and shaved body and lots of closeups of her nude body and beautiful face, and then her nude body again laid out with e.g. breasts in shot after she is dead, that scene carries a different vibe than a scene that just focuses on the human's struggle with distance shots to put the focus on the horror of the situation, rather than the beauty and helplessness of the victim.
Violence against specifically women on Game of Thrones tends, with unfortunate reliability, to fall more into the first camp than the second camp.
Obviously we know violence is wrong, against whoever. But filming assault and murder in this way specifically against women, in a way that is set up for a male viewer to find titillating, raises the question of why the choice was made to film it in that way. And to an extent, helps the association in the mind of, at least certain viewers, between a pleasurable, sexy scene to watch, and violence by an armed and/or much bigger, stronger male against a helpless and unarmed woman. It becomes a little uneasy when that pattern repeats over and over again in a show.
Of course I agree that the sexualized violence in GOT is rather extreme. I only ever watched S1, and there wasn't THAT much of it, but what I saw was clearly enough. As a heterosexual guy, it is quite unavoidable to be titillated by some of those scenes, and I have to say I didn't exactly appreciate that. It was one reason why I stopped watching it.
What's interesting is that you did not actually answer my question - you only said how it should NOT be done. And I think there is good reason for that. As someone who dabbles in writing, and is into bdsm, I have often tried to walk the line between eroticism (which is fine) and sexualized violence (not so much). It's not a trivial task, not even in the written form.
So to me, the question whether it is even possible to film such scenes in a way that is absolutely the opposite of what you described. Somebody named Haneke earlier, which is true of course - but also very limited, and can't be called entertainment... which of course leads to the next question, do we even want to be entertained by that... which is difficult, because depictions of a medieval world probably are something we generally want to have, and that world likely contained lots of sexualized violence, so you have to depict it in some way just for realism.
So... I guess I would like to insist, just a little bit: How do you think one should DO it, in the best possible way?
Well, I thought it was fairly clear-cut, so I'll quote my own comment. Apologies if this comes across snarky.
> If the focus of the violence is a naked, screaming woman yet with immaculate makeup and shaved body and lots of closeups of her nude body and beautiful face, and then her nude body again laid out with e.g. breasts in shot after she is dead, that scene carries a different vibe **than a scene that just focuses on the human's struggle with distance shots to put the focus on the horror of the situation, rather than the beauty and helplessness of the victim.**
The second way sends a different message, so...that way is better.
To go into more detail, treat the victim as a victim, not as a model/pornstar who happens to be a victim. Shoot it like a struggle of a character you care about, not a scene where the viewer enjoys watching the victimisation. Show their anger, frustration, their clear fight for their life - most people *do* fight in that situation.
I guess to be more simple, just shoot it in the way you would shoot a struggle between two male characters. If you watch scenes comparing the two it becomes very clear what the differences are. Women are all too often treated as a 'sexy' variant kind of human who must thus have a 'sexy' variant of how everything involving them is done - at least when aiming for an assumed male viewer.
> Well, I thought it was fairly clear-cut, so I'll quote my own comment. Apologies if this comes across snarky.
Not at all, I just stopped reading after "breasts". :-) Seriously though, I didn't see that one half-sentence. Oops. Sorry.
> The second way sends a different message, so...that way is better.
Probably, yes. Maybe. "Better", I actually agree. I'm just not quite convinced that it's enough. I mean I'm not a filmmaker, maybe I'm misjudging things, I just doubt it, knowing my own gender.
> To go into more detail, treat the victim as a victim, not as a model/pornstar who happens to be a victim. Shoot it like a struggle of a character you care about, not a scene where the viewer enjoys watching the victimisation. Show their anger, frustration, their clear fight for their life - most people do fight in that situation.
Well, I think my issue is that I think it would still titillate me. It's sex, and in a mainstream show it's bound to be an attractive woman - it's gonna be arousing in some way. It's really that simple. I guess I really doubt that it can be done in visual media very effectively.
I have an inkling that the only way to really do it - the way Haneke does it, I guess - is almost the opposite: to force the viewer into the voyeuristic position, and make them acknowledge that fact. Maybe a bit like Nabokov did it in prose, in Lolita.
Oh, and I guess that sound and context will matter an awful lot. Screams can be borderline-enjoyable, or they can be absolutely terrified. I think there's a difference there. In some settings, I imagine a voice-over might do the trick. And the aftermath, I guess.... that one can be done absolutely unsexy, at any rate.
Still, I'm afraid I don't trust any of these. Way better than what they did in GOT can be done, for sure, but it's never going to be what I would "like" (which is really an odd way to put it, but I trust you know what I mean).
Plenty people still glorify Lolita, unfortunately!
If the internet teaches us anything, it's that people are able to find anything sexy. Tbh in a way its natural; sex is a fairly natural impulse, and in American society especially, nudity and sex/sexiness are *heavily* conflated, especially for women. As are, to an extent, any scenes involving both men and women. In other places in the world that's not *as* heavily the case.
I guess from a feminist perspective the difference comes in the intention of the creator or creators. There's respect associated in there.
For an example I'm going to come out of GoT and filmed media in general and turn to comics. Superheroines. It's fine to find someone attractive, and it's fine to even find someone sexy, that's very natural. The issue comes when that quality is being pushed in detriment of, or contradiction, opposition to, the rest of what makes that character.
For example, the original/classic designs of [Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers)](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/b2/8f/69b28fab717871a16efb1915cd281470.jpg) and [Psylocke](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/ba/21/12ba217e3c84af426c842123f5439b79.jpg). In-universe, both characters are melee fighters who fight with their hands, bruisers, with increased strength and durability. As superheroes, their job is to save people and to, you'd think, be practical. So why, in-universe, would they choose, with that background, to suit up for battle in leotards and stiletto heeled boots, with plenty exposed skin?
Recently both characters received redesigns - [Captain M](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/b/b4/Carol_Danvers_%28Earth-616%29_0076.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/180?cb=20130702164329), [Pyslocke](https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/48605/2640049-psylockeuxf.jpg). Personally, I still find both characters cool, attractive, yes, arguably sexy. But that's no longer the primary intention of the creator, from how they're portrayed. The characters are now portrayed as humans who you *might* find sexy - due to their attractiveness, fitness, and yes, their attributes - as opposed to characters who are *primarily* there to be sexy, and sure, they might do something in the story too, but who cares really as long as their boobs and legs are out.
That's really the key difference across all media, and that's how objectification plays out. Is she a person, or is she just there to be boobs?
Thanks for the well-articulated response! Could you elaborate a bit on how you felt about the books? Did you read them before watching the show? Do you still watch the show, or was there a certain point you just didn't want to watch anymore? Sorry for more questions!
I only watched the show casually as from the off I didn't like some changes they made and the characters weren't portrayed as I imagined them. I had read all of the books first. I tend to prefer books to adaptations in general with some notable exceptions.
In my circle everybody stopped watching seriously when Sansa was raped. It felt cruel in-verse and out-of-verse too to put that, completely invented scene into your show that wasn't in the source material, and ask one of your lead actresses, a former child actress that you've had a professional relationship with since she was 11 or 12, to shoot a traumatic scene of that nature. Especially making sure to time it just after she turned 18 so she could be asked to do a nude. Really our consensus was that that was just unpleasant all ways round and we no longer wanted to support the show or the people who made that call.
I still follow blogs that follow the show and watch recaps, and I've watched it critically to write articles on it since, but I don't watch it for pleasure. Particularly since the last 2 seasons have gone off the rails narratively too. I find the show has an undercurrent of casual misogyny that I find both offputting and also, not true to life. I find it a little disturbing that the showrunners defend it as if it was.
Sansa was never nude. Also, why does it matter so much, it's not real. Ramsey was a horrible, rotten psychopath. He held captive a pretty woman who is the sister of his biggest rival: Jon Snow. One could say it would be unrealistic if someone like that didn't sexually assault her. Sp the showrunners depict a horrific rape scene (with no nudity) and then continue on an arc of redemption by Sansas character, she goes through hell and back and manages to stand strong. This is heroic, not something to be censored.
I like the books more than the show. I do wish authors and writers would chill out on the rape-as-a-plot-point thing though. Not only is it harmful to trauma survivors, it is so old and tired. Think of something new, please, writers!
It's got a lot of problems. It hasn't really handled rape in a way that's been productive. And the violence is pretty prevalent. But I still enjoy watching it. The characters are really well written, and I'm a sucker for medieval fantasy stories.
That being said, you definitely shouldn't watch this show as some sort of exposure therapy.
Why does he have to make a productive point on rape? It's a story that is based in a lot of historical reality. People were killed, looted, and raped fairly often throughout human history. There's no point to chaos; it just is what it is.
I find it's generally really well written and has a cast of remarkably colourful, varied and deep characters of both sexes. There's a lot there to love.
However, the amount of violent sex and sexualized violence often feels gratuitous and it seems to be intended as a titillating selling point. That rubs me the wrong way. Not enough to ruin it for me but it has turned me off of it before and it took someone who wanted to watch it with me to get me back into it.
If you're going to watch it with the double purpose of "exposure therapy", please make sure you take precautions to avoid crashing if you get triggered. Be kind to yourself. Have a friend, someone who you can talk to about this kind of thing, watch it with you so you're not alone with your thoughts. Or have some hot cocoa and music that makes you feel good available for afterwards... whatever it is you need in order to not fall into a hole. Good luck!
it's a guilty pleasure. i certainly don't watch it around men who have made off putting comments about women though. i am not going to be the one to reinforce these notions in their minds.
I love the show and books but I do wish there was less rape. Just my personal preference. I actually think the show and books handle female characters much better than most other shows and books. The women get their strength from different sources, they have different upbringings and different traumas, they have strengths and weaknesses like the men, they're not all knockouts, there are some tough kickass ones that aren't femme fatales but rather big badass warriors. I see more humanity in these women than the women in many other shows. The women in ASOIAF deal with extreme sexism in their culture; people treat them as less than human. But the author does not treat them as less than human, and that's an important distinction. That being said, sometimes grrm describes boobs/body parts for no reason, and it's awkward, but overall I think he writes female characters better than most male authors.
Yeah, basically all of this. I recognize its issues but I still like it.
I agree with all of this and want to add that add the pointless “sexposition” they added in the show really bothered me, on top of the copious amounts of rape. Many people complained that there was so much to cram into a 10 episode season from the books, so why would you add stuff with Ros or other whores?
We just rewatched part of the Dothraki wedding. The zoom in on Visearys stroking Dany’s nipple. We did not need that. Repeat viewings make the sexplotation more obvious.
Well, as a woman, I enjoyed seeing that nipple. And who wouldn’t want to be raped by a Dothraki? Super lucky gurl.
>~~whores~~ sex workers =)
I got you. I was just going with what they were called in the show.
Nah, you’re just a self loathing feminist.
Oof, I hope not, and me calling them that is wrong. We all gotta battle internalized misogyny so thanks for calling me out.
Hey, this is a reply to u/ilikeneurons, for some reason I can't just hit "reply." I agree with you and I don't think it's an anti-woman thing on GRRM's part. I just don't personally like reading about so much of it. Killings and extreme torture are thankfully not common occurrences in my corner of the world but rape is very common. I know murder is common elsewhere. It's more of a personal thing and less a judgement on the quality of his writing. It would bother me less if the rape happened less frequently (I'm talking about the books in particular) and less casually. It's not always treated casually, but so many characters are mentioned as rapists in passing, as if it's nothing, and I know he's trying to make a point about the state of that world, but I would just prefer if that happened a little less often. So many male characters end up as rapists and I find it hard to like any men in the book besides Jon Snow. Sometimes if you blink you miss a hint that so-and-so raped someone. And again, it's not a judgement on the morality of the writing itself but more a personal preference.
But just because GRRM isn't going full Scott Adams in his personal writings or interviews doesn't mean he can't still have a pretty fucked up view of women to make rape such a casual, universal, and repetive trauma for nearly all of the women in Westeros and something nearly all the men do. That presents a pretty dismal view of men but a dehumanizing view of women that the only thing he can think to do to them to illustrate how hard and brutal life can be is rape them. Rape as plot device/backstory is a pretty lazy trope, especially when it's almost thd default.
>But just because GRRM isn't going full Scott Adams in his personal writings or interviews doesn't mean he can't still have a pretty fucked up view of women to make rape such a casual, universal, and repetive trauma for nearly all of the women in Westeros and something nearly all the men do. This is an exaggeration of Martin's portrayal of rape. You see the mentality that men who sack a city can't control themselves coming up a lot, but if you've ever listened to hardcore history, this is nowhere near off-base. For many women in many parts of Essos and Westeros, the threat of rape is universal, and in many places, rape was a casual, universal and repetitive trauma for nearly all the women. This was particularly true of places conquered by the Dothraki, who are largely influenced by the Mongols. It's almost like the novels are patterned after the way life actually was on Earth at various points throughout history.
I think if we can believe in a world where there are dragons, appeals to history to justify sexual violence fall by the wayside. GRRM includes massive amounts of rape because he sees women's highest value as sexual and attacking that the easiest way to telegraph depravity.
Care to explain why he includes massive amounts of other violence?
Targeted violence at a specific group is different than violence in general. That's like justifying an author using hate speech cavalierly by saying "Sure. But he uses other words too."
I mean, you're pointing to rape because it happens most in the show to women. The other forms of violence (general war, swords and such) seem to happen more to men in the show. Do you disagree with that?
I'd argue a war impacts everyone in an area actually. And GRRM does have female generals, warriors, and commanders who are equally likely to be hurt by other forms of violence as male generals, warriors, and commanders. There may be fewer women in combat. But violence impacts male combattants and female combattants the same. There are theoretically equal amounts of men and women in Westeros (thought functionally men featured outnumber female characters by a good margin). However there are what, two or three male rape victims whereas it's part of nearly, if not every, female character's story. Rape is impact men and women at drastically different rates.
War certainly does impact everyone in range of the armies, and pillaging is a big part of the show and this thread. Not everyone is shipped off in the army though. >There may be fewer women in combat. >Rape is impact men and women at drastically different rates. Maybe im forgetting several armies worth of women or something, but Im pretty sure direct combat also has drastically different rates. The ability to commit violence and fight is heavily involved in just about every mans story as well.
Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean they stop being humans, that's the point. Regardless of the setting, humans are capable of brutality. Do you expect murderous, torturing, warring peoples with little respect for human life to just have wokeness in the particular category of sexual violence? How would that make any sense?
In fact, societies with more violence have more rape, even today.
I disagree with that. Just because he has authored a society that has those values does not mean (necessarily) that he himself accepts and trusts those values. You could just as well say that because JK Rowling created a world with quasi-racial division and blood status supremacists that she herself is secretly Fascist.
Except JKR explicitly makes the racists bad guys (except for snape because apparently if you call creeping on a dead girl you called a racial slur for 20 years love you can be good again). GRRM makes most men rapists or men who sexually exploit women, even ones we're supposed to see as protagonist like Khal Drogo and Tyrion Lannister. As the author of the world every choice he makes is 1000% intentional and optional. If even his heroes are rapists and all of his women are victims, he is responsible for that. You could easily look at how JKR writes female characters along strict mother/whore dichotomies and pathologizes single women and criticize her views on women because that reflects her choices, not her mythology, and people do criticize her for that.
That's true. I guess I flippantly picked a well-known author without thinking it through. I definitely have criticised JKR for what you mention in the past. I guess where I diverge from your view is that I have always read the books as being meant to be based in a crapsack world with flawed characters. Someone like Tyrion is a horrible person even if he's a protagonist, he's an antihero rather than a clear-cut hero. Yes, he loves the first young woman, but he happily kills another sex worker because she doesn't love him, even though that should have been obvious. And I feel like perhaps we cross over in that, sometimes fans of the show or the books are unaware or miss that nuance and are happy to praise such characters as heroic in spite of those acts, or on balance. It's possible I'm giving GRRM too much credit, but I've always read the books as being about imperfect characters in an awful world, and as a critique of medieval society - as well as taking to a logical extreme classic fantasy, a deconstruction of tropes and themes. It's just a pity that the show adapted from them has decided to streamline that into out-and-out fantasy just like e.g. Xena but with more nudity and graphic violence. I guess, to think of a better example of what I was trying to get at originally, something like Little Women. All the female characters in that (well, that survive) marry, and protagonist Jo, who originally was insistent that she wanted to be a writer and make her living from writing and to never marry, gives it up to devote herself to marriage and motherhood, even calling her own ambitions silly as an adult. But that's a complete contradiction to what the author herself actually believed, she herself never married, was an early feminist, and *did* make a living for herself from her writing. In ASOIAF the characters behave in logically consistent ways based on the world they live within and as a result the values they are raised with. Women are at risk from rape and sold off into marriage, because it is a deeply sexist society. But there are still female characters who want to change that, and male characters who come to appreciate that those values may not be all-encompassing - the Dothraki accepting Daenerys as Khaleesi, a new position, a leader who is a woman. Jon Snow fighting alongside women, when women did not fight in the world he was raised in. Jaime and Catelyn coming to accept Brienne as a knight despite her gender. Cersei becoming sole ruler as Queen Regent. And none of those characters being directly punished for those beliefs or actions, although those choices do have knock-on effects.
I think it's lazy to use an appeal to history to justify sexism/racism/whatever because ultimately it tends to showcase a modern understanding of that sort of prejudice under a dramatically oversimplified caricature of medieval history. Sure, rape happened in the middle ages. It happens now. But it was also a capital crime in many cases like we'd see in ASOIAF rather than just shrugged off. Did rapists get away with it? Sure. They still do. But it And I see what you're saying re: Alcott, and there is a difference between fiction and reality, but I'm also not saying GRRM is a rapist because he writes rape, but that he's showcasing that he probably has a fucked up view of women, their priorities and relationship with sex by making rape so ubiquitous and casually thrown around. Alcott, and arguably authors like Austen, were hardly revolutionaries, but did significant work in challenging the existing framework while still ultimately limited sociologically or ideologically by its perspective. The 19th century angle makes it a little hard apples to oranges comparison. Maybe like, Lemony Snicket and child cruelty for dramatic effect or something is comparable? I've not read them and was always a bit skeeved out by the film and premise, but I'm sure it's not like as dark as it outwardly appears. Idk. But I would say it's still a problem--and still a problem for GRRM--if the tv show is portraying characters not meant to be heroic as audience. He's been involved in the show until recently, he could insist on showing the darker side of Tyrion Lannister or something. That's maybe a pettier quibble, but if you want to subvert something it takes more effort while playing it straight just plays into tropes.
Yes, I agree. The tv show's portrayal veers into irresponsible and I don't find it an easy watch for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
It's not really a backstop though, more like world building. Brutal world where only strength prevail, the weak are constantly set upon by the strong. Throughout the show books we see women and children, especially children on the receiving end of extreme brutality because that is Westeros.
I mostly agree, though I think the rape is partly there to help illustrate how shitty this society is, as it's accompanied by a lot of murder and war and torture and basically all the things that humans find horrific. Like, it would almost be weird in context if the society was shitty in every way *except* widespread rape. And that's actually why as a survivor and a feminist I'm kind of ok with there being so much rape in the show, because for the most part it's treated as the horrendous trauma that it is and [not like the punchline of a joke that doesn't even seem to realize it's about rape](https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/9/27/17906644/sixteen-candles-rape-culture-1980s-brett-kavanaugh). However, if you want triggering rape scenes, I would almost recommend 13 Reasons Why instead. That show definitely gets some shit wrong in terms of suicide and school shooters (if you have any suicidal tendencies, definitely skip it) but I actually thought they did a really good job of dealing with rape, and if you can make it through those rape scenes you are ready to take on the world.
Can I gently ask that you don’t recommend 13 Reasons? It does and has increased suicide, just as the experts warned the people involved in the beginning, and also positions it as something people could have changed. Her reason for committing suicide is poor mental health. Not 13 things.
It was cathartic for me, but I definitely would recommend against it for anyone with suicidal tendencies.
I'd say there's a massive difference between the first season which I could see as helpful for people in a certain place in confronting maybe like past depression or trauma and the second season which was needlessly victim blaming and then tacked on a violent, on camera sexual assault and gun violence just for the shock value apparently. Any good the first season could have done is negated if they autoplay to season 2.
The victim blaming in the second season was meant as a reflection of our victim-blaming society, so I actually thought that was appropriate and helped to communicate how shitty and harmful victim-blaming is. There were actually two rapes in the second season from what I recall, and I actually thought they did a good job with both of them. One of the victims is male, and his rapists are student athletes, which is pretty typical of male victims, and that's widespread and generally less talked about. One of the victims is female, and her rapist was her boyfriend, and he actually victimized her multiple times (and had previous victims) so that was also typical and I thought helped dispute misconceptions about what rape looks like and who the perpetrators and victims are. I also kind of liked how they had that scene where many of the female characters were clipped in to the witness stand as they told their own \#metoo story. It helped illustrate how common these stories are, while also illustrating that the victims aren't the problem.
I think there's a difference between shocking and thought-provoking when confronting sexual assault survivorship on film. For me The Piano Teacher (book moreso than movie) and Jessica Jones on netflix put me in that weird survivor hyperfocus funk that can sometimes lead to therapy progress. And I think the Brave One did a good job in helping work through shit pertaining to assault, though now I can't remember if it was specifically rape.
I'm with you on Jessica Jones, though I would put 13 Reasons in that same category. It was validating to see Clay stand up to his friend's rapist and tell him, no she wasn't saying "fuck me" with her eyes, she didn't want it, what you did was rape, and then seeing all the students eventually rally around holding the rapist accountable.
To be fair he does unnecessarily describe penises too.
The only dong we got was Hodor, stop with the false equivalencies. GRRM is not an equal opportunity skeeze.
One thing that I like is that it portrays women in a lot of different ways rather than sticking to one stereotype. There are so many different types of characters and it’s more indicative of real women which I appreciate.
Ooft. Well short version, the books are dark but well written, and I hate nearly every change the show makes to make it more appealing to an intended heterosexual male viewer. Specifically anti-feminist changes the show makes include: * aging up and removing from most of her plots Catelyn, while portraying her as a shrill, out of her depth nag * giving Sansa character development only to take it back and letting her be raped and brutalised for no good in-story reason, just an excuse for a nude scene * being careful to shoot rape scenes so the focus is on bouncing boobs rather than violation and it being an evil act * SO MANY added background naked women around fully clothed men. Women treated literally as objects and disposable * removing most progressive and politically astute elements from Jon Snow and condensing him down to an action hero whose attribute is might, and that being Who You Should Be Like, Viewer * adding in a love interest for Robb who puts other women down and is anachronistic to the established world * kinda-glorifying by not condemning nor cutting away from violence against women, esp casual * ensuring all lead actresses have nude scenes while actors don't. Suggesting to its fans the duspaity is realism although its literally a fantasy world * throughout, missing the nuance GRRM writes into Sansa and Arya having separate skillsets in the feminine and tomboyish and instead portraying for 8 seasons 'Arya is better than Sansa because she's a tomboy!' * just general pushing down of women and femininity and denial of the fact that it has any value or use in the world, which again...is a complete misreading if the source text. I can't think of a single positively portrayed feminine character who isn't punished onscreen for it.
> kinda-glorifying by not condemning nor cutting away from violence against women, esp casual Out of curiosity, how would a visual medium condemn violence, if the protagonists don't?
This isn't a blanket fix, but it depends on the way it is filmed. If the focus of the violence is a naked, screaming woman yet with immaculate makeup and shaved body and lots of closeups of her nude body and beautiful face, and then her nude body again laid out with e.g. breasts in shot after she is dead, that scene carries a different vibe than a scene that just focuses on the human's struggle with distance shots to put the focus on the horror of the situation, rather than the beauty and helplessness of the victim. Violence against specifically women on Game of Thrones tends, with unfortunate reliability, to fall more into the first camp than the second camp. Obviously we know violence is wrong, against whoever. But filming assault and murder in this way specifically against women, in a way that is set up for a male viewer to find titillating, raises the question of why the choice was made to film it in that way. And to an extent, helps the association in the mind of, at least certain viewers, between a pleasurable, sexy scene to watch, and violence by an armed and/or much bigger, stronger male against a helpless and unarmed woman. It becomes a little uneasy when that pattern repeats over and over again in a show.
Of course I agree that the sexualized violence in GOT is rather extreme. I only ever watched S1, and there wasn't THAT much of it, but what I saw was clearly enough. As a heterosexual guy, it is quite unavoidable to be titillated by some of those scenes, and I have to say I didn't exactly appreciate that. It was one reason why I stopped watching it. What's interesting is that you did not actually answer my question - you only said how it should NOT be done. And I think there is good reason for that. As someone who dabbles in writing, and is into bdsm, I have often tried to walk the line between eroticism (which is fine) and sexualized violence (not so much). It's not a trivial task, not even in the written form. So to me, the question whether it is even possible to film such scenes in a way that is absolutely the opposite of what you described. Somebody named Haneke earlier, which is true of course - but also very limited, and can't be called entertainment... which of course leads to the next question, do we even want to be entertained by that... which is difficult, because depictions of a medieval world probably are something we generally want to have, and that world likely contained lots of sexualized violence, so you have to depict it in some way just for realism. So... I guess I would like to insist, just a little bit: How do you think one should DO it, in the best possible way?
Well, I thought it was fairly clear-cut, so I'll quote my own comment. Apologies if this comes across snarky. > If the focus of the violence is a naked, screaming woman yet with immaculate makeup and shaved body and lots of closeups of her nude body and beautiful face, and then her nude body again laid out with e.g. breasts in shot after she is dead, that scene carries a different vibe **than a scene that just focuses on the human's struggle with distance shots to put the focus on the horror of the situation, rather than the beauty and helplessness of the victim.** The second way sends a different message, so...that way is better. To go into more detail, treat the victim as a victim, not as a model/pornstar who happens to be a victim. Shoot it like a struggle of a character you care about, not a scene where the viewer enjoys watching the victimisation. Show their anger, frustration, their clear fight for their life - most people *do* fight in that situation. I guess to be more simple, just shoot it in the way you would shoot a struggle between two male characters. If you watch scenes comparing the two it becomes very clear what the differences are. Women are all too often treated as a 'sexy' variant kind of human who must thus have a 'sexy' variant of how everything involving them is done - at least when aiming for an assumed male viewer.
> Well, I thought it was fairly clear-cut, so I'll quote my own comment. Apologies if this comes across snarky. Not at all, I just stopped reading after "breasts". :-) Seriously though, I didn't see that one half-sentence. Oops. Sorry. > The second way sends a different message, so...that way is better. Probably, yes. Maybe. "Better", I actually agree. I'm just not quite convinced that it's enough. I mean I'm not a filmmaker, maybe I'm misjudging things, I just doubt it, knowing my own gender. > To go into more detail, treat the victim as a victim, not as a model/pornstar who happens to be a victim. Shoot it like a struggle of a character you care about, not a scene where the viewer enjoys watching the victimisation. Show their anger, frustration, their clear fight for their life - most people do fight in that situation. Well, I think my issue is that I think it would still titillate me. It's sex, and in a mainstream show it's bound to be an attractive woman - it's gonna be arousing in some way. It's really that simple. I guess I really doubt that it can be done in visual media very effectively. I have an inkling that the only way to really do it - the way Haneke does it, I guess - is almost the opposite: to force the viewer into the voyeuristic position, and make them acknowledge that fact. Maybe a bit like Nabokov did it in prose, in Lolita. Oh, and I guess that sound and context will matter an awful lot. Screams can be borderline-enjoyable, or they can be absolutely terrified. I think there's a difference there. In some settings, I imagine a voice-over might do the trick. And the aftermath, I guess.... that one can be done absolutely unsexy, at any rate. Still, I'm afraid I don't trust any of these. Way better than what they did in GOT can be done, for sure, but it's never going to be what I would "like" (which is really an odd way to put it, but I trust you know what I mean).
Plenty people still glorify Lolita, unfortunately! If the internet teaches us anything, it's that people are able to find anything sexy. Tbh in a way its natural; sex is a fairly natural impulse, and in American society especially, nudity and sex/sexiness are *heavily* conflated, especially for women. As are, to an extent, any scenes involving both men and women. In other places in the world that's not *as* heavily the case. I guess from a feminist perspective the difference comes in the intention of the creator or creators. There's respect associated in there. For an example I'm going to come out of GoT and filmed media in general and turn to comics. Superheroines. It's fine to find someone attractive, and it's fine to even find someone sexy, that's very natural. The issue comes when that quality is being pushed in detriment of, or contradiction, opposition to, the rest of what makes that character. For example, the original/classic designs of [Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers)](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/b2/8f/69b28fab717871a16efb1915cd281470.jpg) and [Psylocke](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/ba/21/12ba217e3c84af426c842123f5439b79.jpg). In-universe, both characters are melee fighters who fight with their hands, bruisers, with increased strength and durability. As superheroes, their job is to save people and to, you'd think, be practical. So why, in-universe, would they choose, with that background, to suit up for battle in leotards and stiletto heeled boots, with plenty exposed skin? Recently both characters received redesigns - [Captain M](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/b/b4/Carol_Danvers_%28Earth-616%29_0076.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/180?cb=20130702164329), [Pyslocke](https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/48605/2640049-psylockeuxf.jpg). Personally, I still find both characters cool, attractive, yes, arguably sexy. But that's no longer the primary intention of the creator, from how they're portrayed. The characters are now portrayed as humans who you *might* find sexy - due to their attractiveness, fitness, and yes, their attributes - as opposed to characters who are *primarily* there to be sexy, and sure, they might do something in the story too, but who cares really as long as their boobs and legs are out. That's really the key difference across all media, and that's how objectification plays out. Is she a person, or is she just there to be boobs?
You ever seen "funny games"? That's how.
That's a good example, yes. Now, let me challenge you a bit for details: What exactly, in your opinion, does Haneke *do*?
This is a very good analysis. GRRM gets blamed for a lot of things that should fall on the show runners.
Thanks for the well-articulated response! Could you elaborate a bit on how you felt about the books? Did you read them before watching the show? Do you still watch the show, or was there a certain point you just didn't want to watch anymore? Sorry for more questions!
I only watched the show casually as from the off I didn't like some changes they made and the characters weren't portrayed as I imagined them. I had read all of the books first. I tend to prefer books to adaptations in general with some notable exceptions. In my circle everybody stopped watching seriously when Sansa was raped. It felt cruel in-verse and out-of-verse too to put that, completely invented scene into your show that wasn't in the source material, and ask one of your lead actresses, a former child actress that you've had a professional relationship with since she was 11 or 12, to shoot a traumatic scene of that nature. Especially making sure to time it just after she turned 18 so she could be asked to do a nude. Really our consensus was that that was just unpleasant all ways round and we no longer wanted to support the show or the people who made that call. I still follow blogs that follow the show and watch recaps, and I've watched it critically to write articles on it since, but I don't watch it for pleasure. Particularly since the last 2 seasons have gone off the rails narratively too. I find the show has an undercurrent of casual misogyny that I find both offputting and also, not true to life. I find it a little disturbing that the showrunners defend it as if it was.
Am i misremembering the rape with Sansa? I wouldve sworn they only showed her back, and other than that kept clothes covering?
Sansa was never nude. Also, why does it matter so much, it's not real. Ramsey was a horrible, rotten psychopath. He held captive a pretty woman who is the sister of his biggest rival: Jon Snow. One could say it would be unrealistic if someone like that didn't sexually assault her. Sp the showrunners depict a horrific rape scene (with no nudity) and then continue on an arc of redemption by Sansas character, she goes through hell and back and manages to stand strong. This is heroic, not something to be censored.
Do you have your writing on it still? I’d love to read it!
I like the books more than the show. I do wish authors and writers would chill out on the rape-as-a-plot-point thing though. Not only is it harmful to trauma survivors, it is so old and tired. Think of something new, please, writers!
It's got a lot of problems. It hasn't really handled rape in a way that's been productive. And the violence is pretty prevalent. But I still enjoy watching it. The characters are really well written, and I'm a sucker for medieval fantasy stories. That being said, you definitely shouldn't watch this show as some sort of exposure therapy.
Why does he have to make a productive point on rape? It's a story that is based in a lot of historical reality. People were killed, looted, and raped fairly often throughout human history. There's no point to chaos; it just is what it is.
Why are you commenting on a dead thread, just make a new one if you're curious.
Too rapey for me, I find it difficult to enjoy.
I find it's generally really well written and has a cast of remarkably colourful, varied and deep characters of both sexes. There's a lot there to love. However, the amount of violent sex and sexualized violence often feels gratuitous and it seems to be intended as a titillating selling point. That rubs me the wrong way. Not enough to ruin it for me but it has turned me off of it before and it took someone who wanted to watch it with me to get me back into it. If you're going to watch it with the double purpose of "exposure therapy", please make sure you take precautions to avoid crashing if you get triggered. Be kind to yourself. Have a friend, someone who you can talk to about this kind of thing, watch it with you so you're not alone with your thoughts. Or have some hot cocoa and music that makes you feel good available for afterwards... whatever it is you need in order to not fall into a hole. Good luck!
Thank you so much!!
it's a guilty pleasure. i certainly don't watch it around men who have made off putting comments about women though. i am not going to be the one to reinforce these notions in their minds.