The Fallacy of GoT’s Women on puncak, atas Part 3: Empowerment 

Welcome to the third and final installment of “Sexism and Season 6,” the essay series seeking to counter the distressingly abundant claim that Game of Thrones (GoT) overcame the charges of sexism previously levied at it and delivered a feminist season. This particular section tackles the misguided notion that violence as a path to empowerment is in any way feminist, especially when it’s the only path offered by showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss, and their creative team (D&D).

Those who listen to The Fanwankers podcast or follow me on social media have probably heard me mention the fact that I have an “Unsullied” (non-book reader) brother who is a fan of the show. I was at his house recently and GoT came up, along with the whole concept of its “women problem” and if Season 6 had successfully “fixed” it. I told him that I hated this season and found it pandering, and he threw up his arms in exasperation and said, “so the show can’t win!”

But see, this season was pandering, and not subtly so. For all D&D claimed that “not one word” of their scripts had changed as a result of criticism, it is very obvious that just about every plotline was shoved full of characters and moments that D&D thought would appeal to their female viewers. We had women sassing men, women declaring war on weak men/men who didn’t think women should rule, women being put in positions of power, women getting revenge… Even women “burning the patriarchy to the ground.”

Now, I explained in Part 1 of this series how the setting against which these women triumph was so meaningless that the idea they’ve been largely punished in the first place is nearly inexcusable, while Part 2 tackled the actual scripting of the female characters and how it was full of sexist tropes and assumptions. Still, I think the truly offensive element of this season to me is that what was presented to us—what I just described in the paragraph above—is what I was “supposed” to want. It was what

were supposed to want. And clearly it worked for a bunch of people; I’d never argue otherwise.

But what I would also argue is that the “empowerment” Season 6 offered was, at least in my opinion, utterly sexist at its core. However, before that can be expanded, it’s important to clarify what “empowerment” even is.

Simply put, to “empower” someone in a sociological sense means to enable a marginalized individual to combat the discrimination they face and to be in a position to achieve greater influence, (literally “to bestow power”) or to be involved in the decision making processes from which they were previously excluded. What does it mean when we talk about an “empowered woman” in literature and scripted media? A woman who displays qualities and/or acts in a manner that is challenging to the socially discriminatory processes/systems/institutions that oppress individuals based on gender identity, and/or a woman who has obtained power within said systems.

D&D’s version of female empowerment, however, was not in any way challenging to any social system, because it was rooted in their own privileged assumptions about how the world works. It’s what two white dudes with a pattern of not listening to criticism, of not bringing in a diversity of voices to the writers’ room, and of not making any noticeable effort to understand their own privilege conceive of as feminism. Don’t get me wrong: I truly believe that the men working on GoT are trying to do right by women. Sexists aren’t just those wacky old dudes talking about how a woman’s place is in the kitchen. Sometimes they’re very educated individuals who think of themselves as progressive, yet never allow a space for their worldviews be challenged, and are insistent on being allies by talking over everyone to put forth the story they believe is the most compelling/best for everyone. Which is sort of exactly how privilege works.

This issue isn’t just restricted to sexism, by the way, especially in Season 6. Look at how the story of Loras vs. the strawman homophobes was all about the straight people acting and reacting to the events. Loras was an object; a passive victim whose suffering was meant for us to voyeuristically consume, so we could shake our righteous fists at the Faith Militant.

Or do I need to remind you of the show’s treatment of disability and mental illness this year? Hodor’s condition was presented as a “whodunit” mystery, and Theon’s PTSD was screamed away when it inconvenienced Yara. She outright told him that he should kill himself or get on with it, and the narrative confirmed that it was apparently what he needed to hear in that moment, because that’s how trauma works.

And boy was Tyrion’s plotline perhaps the most meta of them all: he spent a full season explaining slavery and how to navigate the situation to Missandei and Grey Worm. He was proven wrong for a millisecond, but that was quickly fixed the next episode to show how once again, he was the only person with the ideas and answers that

The story is so progressive when it comes to race, as long as white people are the ones triumphing or saving the day. It’s so progressive on LGBT+ issues when it’s straight people who are fighting the homophobes. And it’s so wonderful and inclusive when it comes to depicting mental difference by showing that there’s a reason/inception point for why everyone is the way they are, and that trauma should be treated as something to “overcome” so people can return to their “old” selves! There’s no other way to put this than to say: this is a story written by the privileged, for the privileged.

So of course when it comes to writing a “pro-woman” story, D&D are just as unsuccessful. These men (including writer-producer Bryan Cogman and staff writer Dave Hill) cloistered themselves away in a room, determined to “ignore criticism” to the point where they didn’t even attend SDCC last year, and then churned out a story that they thought would appeal to women without bothering to check with a single woman. Or have a woman serve as a director. It’s like they wanted to shut the critics up by “fixing” this problem, but had no interest in what the actual dialogue about said problem was. To this day their creative team doesn’t know what the actual complaints about last season even were.

And I’m in no way saying, by the way, that men can’t be feminists, or that any woman brought onto the creative team would have automatically been one herself. But what I am saying is that when you’re in a position of power like D&D, working on a show that has a proven track record of issues when it comes to the portrayal of women, having a writing and directing team of only other men is not too flattering. In fact, it might be what I’d call “faulty allyship.”

Just as we got a story about LGBT issues heavily rooted in the straight-gaze, Season 6 gave us a “feminist” story heavily rooted in patriarchal values.

I think it’s important to tackle the argument “well women

have to behave in this way to gain power because that’s the setting.” Not to be too repetitive, but Part 1 of this series covered how “the setting” holds no meaning. However, even if we can somehow pretend that D&D managed to do a very good job in this department, there’s the issue of their confusion when it comes to depicting a toxically patriarchal world versus endorsing, through their narrative, the qualities valued in such a world. In the books (just hear me out), George R.R. Martin portrays some really awful things that happen to his characters as a result of the heavily misogynistic society that they live in, and that can be really upsetting to read about. But he bends over backwards to show that the society itself is completely unstable and untenable:

…[Martin] uses the setting of Westeros to really highlight the issues that arise from the characters navigating such a toxic patriarchy, as well as the inherent hypocrisy that comes with the worship at the altar of the “chivalrous knight” and the “maiden fair.” Chivalry, despite being all about “treating women right” and placing “virginal” women on a bizarre pedestal, is sexist. Benevolently so, yes, but still sexist.

D&D…do no such thing. There’s no examination of the toll that embracing these awful ideals has on their characters. How can there be any exploration of the way in which every highborn woman in society is groomed and utterly lacking in sexual agency, when The Reach is portrayed as the sexual liberation capital of the world where Olenna can poo-poo a betrothal to a prince, sleep with her sister’s betrothed, and the dude would find her assertions of her desires so endearing that he’d agree to screw over both of their Houses by marrying her? Sorry, I mentioned the inconsistent setting again, didn’t I? (It’s part and parcel, I promise.) Even if this was something that Olenna was supposed to have done behind everyone’s back because of how oppressed she is, the fact doing such a thing would even occur to her betrays, if nothing else, D&D’s complete lack of care when it comes to scripting how a woman would reasonably think and act in this setting.

And truthfully, this isn’t just about how women act. This is the fact that D&D seem to completely buy into the concept of “toxic masculinity.” As a quick review, this is the assumption that masculinity, viewed as the compulsory gender presentation for men, is unemotional, sexually aggressive, and violent. Men who present outside of these gender norms are emasculated, and thus not treated as “real men.” It’s not that there aren’t aggressive and violent men, or that anything is wrong with masculinity in and of itself. It’s just that this socially constructed gender expression is viewed as the only acceptable option for men, and that’s where the danger lies.

Needless to say the scripting of every male character buys into this notion. As I pointed out in an earlier piece about GoT’s sexism, D&D completely scripted away Jaime’s struggles with PTSD from the book because they thought it’d be more fun if he had a wacky fight where his golden hand stopped a sword (and apparently in their first draft they forgot entirely that losing his right hand would have been a handicap for him until George R.R. Martin pointed that out). Similarly, Tyrion’s alcoholism was made out to be a joke and his depression was magically fixed by spotting a dragon. Sam was “fixed” from the source material so that instead of devaluing his own skills despite proving his strength time and time again, he spent Season 5 walking around, bragging about getting laid and killing a Thenn. Men’s victimization at the hands of women was played for laughs, such as Tommen’s rape and Bronn’s torture. And of course, any man that did not present as traditionally “manly” in speech or actions was mocked for weakness, such as Hizdahr.

I suppose one could claim that it’s to a point, and that we’re supposed to be horrified by what the setting leads to in terms of this compulsory gender role, but…no! That’s not the show we’re watching at all. We’re meant to laugh at Tyrion’s drinking jokes, to cheer when Tormund kills the Lord of Bones because #nohomo, and to agree with Dany’s remark about that wuss Hizdahr. Men aren’t allowed to show weakness,  nor are they given the space to explore (or even understand) their own victimization… Heck! Jon barely seemed to remember his own death!

Perhaps what best exemplifies Benioff and Weiss’s perspectives on their scripting of men comes from a Scriptnotes Podcast episode they were on back in February. The host asked them to match up GoT characters to American politicians, and jokingly suggested Ramsay was a good choice for Ted Cruz. Benioff disagreed, saying:

“Ramsay is actually kind of a badass. Like Ramsay fights…yeah.”

I mean, yes, this was a joke aimed more at Ted Cruz’s proactivity than anything else, but clearly, D&D think they did something quite special with that character. That scripting scene after scene of a violent abusive asshole somehow made Ramsay “badass,” and what we should be in awe of him, or at least respect him, because “he fights.” And D&D have certainly bent over backwards to ensure that Ramsay was the perfect villain to the point where he is fits entirely the fanfiction trope of a Villain Sue: he’s a better tactician than Jon, he’s an amazing fighter to the point where he’ll be surrounded by a field of corpses, he’s a better politician than his dad given the way the Northern Lords fell over him this year. He would have won the Battle of the Bastards too if not for those meddling Vale Lords. Over and over again, the show sought to impress on us how much of a total threat Ramsay was. And apparently a badass as well.

Yes, I’m aware that Ramsay is a villain so it seems like it’s a depiction vs. endorsement kind of thing, but these are the skills that are valued and rewarded by the story at every turn. The skills that are the height of badassery, apparently, so any other character that we’re supposed to take seriously also commits acts of violence. Only difference? The good guys just use violence to gain

revenge, and revenge is noble. Revenge on GoT is also inherently violent, because violence is what’s respected by the narrative, or at least taken seriously (see the “badass” quote again).

Stannis deciding to attack Winterfell was framed as his ambition, a “bad” thing, and one that he was ultimately punished for—punished so thoroughly that it bordered on ridiculous with his terrible, horrible, no good very bad day. On the other hand, Jon seeking to attack Winterfell to avenge his family was framed as noble and “good.” Jon’s revenge on the Night’s Watch mutineers was one of the primary things that earned him his Lord Commandership (at least that’s what Sam’s speech to the brothers seemed to imply). Olly stabbing Jon was bad, but Jon hanging Olly was justice.

And if it seems like I’m picking on Jon a lot…I am, because he’s more or less our Designated Protagonist™. So it’s not as if we can even try to pretend that there’s any grander commentary on the futility of revenge nor a condemnation of violent means to an end.

This all comes back to what “empowerment” means on GoT. Violence as empowerment is, as I’ve been saying, what’s clearly being endorsed here, and that’s a toxically masculine-coded path. Being a victim makes a man feel weak (and thus emasculated), so he regains his sense of power through violence since that’s what’s respected in a patriarchal culture. This is truly the harm of “toxic masculinity”: that Men are expected to Act from a place of physical strength, and can thereore be blamed for their own victimization if they lack the “skills” to gain power back. Real Men™ wouldn’t find themselves in such scrapes. It’s almost as if the sexism of GoT isn’t good for the male audience either.

However, this problem simply doubles down when it comes to the way that women find empowerment on GoT, because all D&D did was apply the same exact rubric to them. Women on the show get hurt/abused/killed, so they hurt/abuse/kill men in return, and this is how they end up being Women on Top™. The “feminist” message of the Season 6 was that violent women are empowered because violence is respected (and male-coded), and apparently feminism is when women demonstrate that they can be just like patriarchy-approved men. Which is an understanding feminism straight out of either the 80’s or an MRA meeting.

What’s particularly distressing is that quite a few women on GoT started out this season well on their way to being empowered without buying into this violent revenge-worship narrative. Or as I like to put it, “actually being empowered,” since such a path comes with an inherent challenge to the system in which they’re oppressed. I mean yes, the setting is so inconsistent across the board that challenging it is meaningless, but there was a

Yara is perhaps my favorite example, because for a hot minute I had a character I actually

liked on the show. And I don’t mean Cersei, for whom my enjoyment of was due to a narrative D&D had no idea they were telling; I mean I liked Yara as a character within the story we were meant to enjoy. I legitimately found her conversation with Balon, where she pointed out the futility and utter bullshit of the reaving lifestyle, compelling. She refused to be cowed when he tried to shame her for attempting a rescue of Theon, and it seemed like she might actually be a person who could elicit positive change in such a world.

However, the next scene we saw her in was when she swore revenge on the man who murdered her father. Which was one hell of a guess for her.

“I’m going to find out who did this. I’m going to feed them to the sharks while they live.”

Reasonable. I already detailed in Part 2 how her scripting then went from bad to worse with her abuse of Theon, her passivity at the Kingsmoot, her purchasing and rape of a sex slave, and ultimately, her alliance with Daenerys to “murder an uncle or two.” Because Real Feminists will murder any guy who isn’t a good ally!

Lady Crane is another great example. The sheer ridiculousness of her randomly asking for acting advice from Arya just because she had “nice eyebrows” did distract a bit, but in general it was hard not to be a little won over by the way Lady Crane handled herself, how she dealt with sexism in the workplace, and her total compassion and willingness to help an injured Arya, despite not knowing her all that well and clearly understanding all the red flags following her around.

But two problems, of course: 1.) Lady Crane was purposely propped up to be a sympathetic and likable character for yet another “oh no they didn’t this show is sooo evil” shock death, and 2.) they felt they needed to explain her ability to stitch someone up, and the best option to do so was by giving her a history of mutilating her lovers that cheated on her. What. I guess that’s how we know she’s “badass.” And sure she can sew, but she can’t cook; she’s not

Arya, though, is actually the most interesting example this year. Stick-hitting complaints aside, you could really have read her arc as her utter refusal to turn towards violence anymore. If so, the implication would be that she had learned her lesson with the Trant situation last year, and perhaps the catharsis she may have felt in the moment had taken a toll on her.

For instance, in her training montage she tells The Waif about “Arya Stark’s” revenge list, and The Waif seems to beg for an invite onto it:

Which Arya doesn’t do. She seems to be determined not to get dragged down by the Waif’s pettiness. Secondly, we see her question the entire concept behind being an assassin, and deciding that this isn’t the career for her; killing someone as nice as Lady Crane (lover stabbings aside) didn’t sit right with Arya’s moral code; she did what she had to do in order to escape that assignment, and at least try to protect Lady Crane. Unfortunately, that meant seeing Lady Crane’s grisly demise, and being forced to kill The Waif (in what can only be seen as self-defense), but perhaps this could have been another part of her sharp lesson. Afterall, she joined the Faceless Men to kill everyone she wanted, and now she’s learning why that’s not a desirable thing.

The logical endpoint for her arc this year was when she quit the guild. Except that it didn’t stop there. Her storyline concluded with her warping to the riverlands, carving up two Freys off-screen, and feeding them to their father before murdering him in the name of revenge. This is one of the most extreme instances of violence on the show, and we were expected to enjoy it because it was a “good guy” committing it. And we were also probably meant to think of her as a Badass.

In past seasons, women could gain empowerment not just through violence, but also sexual manipulation…another sexist trope, for sure, but compared to this year it might have actually been refreshing. That’s the kind of show we’re dealing with. As such, Margaery Tyrell, the Sexual Liberation Pioneer was most certainly presented to us as a Woman on Top. Though I found her Season 5 scripting incredibly concerning, it might shock you to learn then that this year, I had very little issue with what they were going for with her, at least from a feminist perspective. She was going to do whatever it took to get her brother to safety, even if it was against her self-interest, her House’s interest, and actually the interest of the entire kingdom with this whole “new alliance between Faith and Crown” that looked none too promising.

There was a problem with its execution given that the deal she settled for was actually so destructive and horrible that she ended up looking entirely daft, but ignoring the details and looking just at the message, it was a story of sisterly love — the story of a woman who had no recourse (because perjury is a very serious crime) and did what she could to navigate her situation and squeak out as much agency as possible. She did it without violence. In fact, she put an end to the violence that probably

would have made the most sense for her, her brother, and the kingdom. But Margaery broke the trope I’m complaining about, so that’s a good thing, right?

Well, what happened? The narrative punished her for it, fiercely. In fact the only silver lining of her storyline from this season is that she managed to convince Olenna to leave the city, putting her now in the position to seek violent revenge and get that power back for House Tyrell. Or just not the Lannisters. Which I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to want, as viewers.

backwards to punish those who don’t choose a violent path and embrace toxically masculine ideals. Consider the examples I just gave: D&D shoved every person in one plotline into a room and exploded them, Arya outright warped to the riverlands and accomplished everything she needed to do to set up her full revenge on Walder Frey off-screen (she had to have taken over the kitchens to make those pies…), Lady Crane left a trail of mutilated exes and apparently harmed a colleague and no one seemed concerned, and Yara literally argued the opposite points to Dany that she had made to her father earlier in the season. This isn’t even going into the fact that The Waif had no motivation whatsoever for hating Arya as much as she did to the point where she delighted in the moments that she was able to inflict pain on her.

It’s not just that GoT endorses this violent badassery—it’s that it defies all logic to do so. That’s how desperate D&D are to push forth this world view. Though one needs look no further than Sansa’s storyline for the past two seasons to truly understand that.

As a crash course, last season at Littlefinger’s urging, Sansa agreed to marry Ramsay Bolton to get revenge on his family for murdering hers. But somehow this master plan went awry, especially because Ramsay was

a cruel and sadistic person who ended up raping her on their wedding night, as well as subsequent nights afterwards, and keeping her locked up. Theon helped her to escape Winterfell, where she then proceeded to go North and find her brother, Jon. She convinced him to raise an army of Northern Lords to fight Ramsay and retake Winterfell from the Boltons for their family, while rejecting help from Littlefinger and his offer of the Vale troops. However, the Northern Lords weren’t really signing onto this effort, so Sansa decided to eat her words and accept Littlefinger’s help. Jon’s army won the battle (pretty much entirely as a result of this), and Jon himself left Ramsay alive for Sansa. She decided to lock him up in a basement and feed him to his own dogs. Then she sat quietly while Jon was elected King in the North and raised not a single objection, yet still closed the year with a slightly miffed expression on her face.

Now, “Sansa vs. Jon” was a tension definitely set-up this year, and promising to continue into Season 7. So I don’t want to act as if Sansa’s plotline was entirely one-note. However, there is no denying that the thematic climax of her arc was when she killed Ramsay, and killed him in a brutal fashion. Her story for the past two seasons was all about reaching that moment.

I don’t want to pretend that there aren’t survivors who wouldn’t do exactly what Sansa did in that position. That it wouldn’t be satisfying or even cathartic on some level to do horrible things to one’s abuser. For that reason, it’s not like feeling validated by Sansa’s actions is this awful thing, and I’m never one to say “she’s just as bad as Ramsay now!”; that’s simply a false equivalency which ignores the fact that many survivors lash back because it’s how they feel compelled/equipped to defend themselves. There is no one way any survivor looks, and though I’m about to be quite condemning of the narrative, it’s due to the messaging and presentation, not a desire to only accept certain responses to abuse.

However, there is a reason #BreakTheCycle exists. Because perpetuating violence in any form, even as means to achieving “noble” revenge, is damaging to one’s self. I mean, we can bring neuroscience and biology into this if we want, but I think it’d be missing the forest for the trees. The issue with Sansa’s story isn’t a simplistic “violence is bad” deal; it’s that this was her path to empowerment.

Look at how this is framed: the most commanding voice in that room of Vale Lords belongs to an teenage girl.

Which yeah, patriarchal values, the confusion of what feminism even is…everything I’ve been saying up until this point. But what mystifies me is that D&D felt that this path was even needed in the first place. Like, did they watch their own show? At the end of Season 4, Sansa claimed her agency for herself, and it was almost solely through the use of her intuition. However rushed that moment may have seemed given the trajectory of her arc leading up to it, and however ridiculous her Outfit of Empowerment was, there’s no denying that the moment she lied to and played the Vale Lords…she was getting what she wanted. She understood her hold over Littlefinger, she understood the value of her name, and she earned herself powerful allies in case anyone would think to take advantage of her.

In short, she was an empowered “player.” So why in seven hells did D&D dial back her character growth and have her blindly trust in Littlefinger again the next season? What did her going to Winterfell actually serve, especially in terms of her character? No…frankly, for anyone’s character? Because I’ve been running with the assumption that it was for the benefit of building up Ramsay’s villain-status, but in what universe would his treatment of Osha and Rickon this year not have accomplished that anyway?

The messaging of this creative decision is horrific: that Sansa thought she was a player in control of the situation, but when she faced her first real trial she learned she wasn’t ready and was horribly punished for it. Then, thanks to her brutalization she learned who she was

truly dealing with and could face the grim reality of that world with a hardened attitude. Rape was her teacher; she became a player because of her rape, not despite it.

There’s no part of me that thinks anyone would willingly write a story to make that point, it’s just too awful. It’s actually more generous to assume that D&D didn’t even consider the messaging or Sansa’s past characterization, and instead focused solely on the fact that they knew she’d eventually triumph in this situation. In fact, her inevitable vicotry was something Bryan Cogman almost outright promised in the Season 5 DVD commentary:

“It’s an upsetting scene, it’s a horrifying scene, it’s meant to be … [But] the accusation that our motives were [that we] just threw in a rape for shock value, I personally don’t think the scene as shot, or as written, or as acted by our wonderful actors, supports that argument. Nor do I think the aftermath of the scene supports that argument. Not only in these episodes, but also in future episodes. This story is not over. This is a long ongoing story. Sansa has a journey ahead of her, and what happens to her in that room is a huge part of that journey, and one that we’ve thought through.”

This was aided by Sophie Turner’s remarks on Sansa’s character, since for some reason she was expected to defend the storyline during the 2015 SDCC panel.

“[If] there’s one thing that Sansa still is, despite what happened to her, [it’s] strong.”

Don’t worry, just stay tuned! They’d never make a story about a rape survivor who wasn’t strong! There’s going to be a TV-ready conclusion! And again, it’s not to say there aren’t survivors who would reach the same conclusion or project strength in the same way, but it’s the fact that it was the One Promised Path that makes it an issue. The immediate dialogue basically trampled over any survivor who doesn’t feel so strong. And that was never even given a chance to be viewed as a valid reaction for Sansa, because that’s not enjoyable to the TV-audience. Even if it’s kind of exactly the story George R.R. Martin told in the supposed source material with Jeyne Poole and Ramsay, who deals with her abuse by trying to avoid more harm, rather than acting in a “hardened” manner and fighting back. But the assumption was made long ago that the viewers couldn’t care about Jeyne.

In fact, another remark of Cogman’s from the DVD commentary really emphasizes their notion of marketable storytelling:

“Basically, when we decided to combine Sansa’s storyline with another character in the books it was done with the idea that it would be hugely dramatically satisfying to have Sansa back in her occupied childhood home and navigate this Gothic horror story she’s found herself in and, of course, to be reunited with Theon – setting her on the path to reclaiming her family home and becoming a major player in the big overall story.”

I’m sure you’ve seen me make ironic use of “dramatically satisfying” before, but need I remind you that Sansa’s rape was basically the only plot-point in Winterfell last year. Sansa’s rape made Myranda jealous. Sansa’s rape made Theon want to help her. Oh, and Stannis was coming and Ramsay wanted to prove himself a worthy heir to his father by handling this threat, but that had literally nothing to do with Sansa. So the above quote is Bryan Cogman straight up admitting that they found the idea of Sansa being raped and then getting violent revenge for that rape to be quality entertainment. We, as the audience, were expected to just consume this because Rape is Drama. But it’s only good drama when it also spurs the woman to become a major player and get her revenge.

And not to beat a dead horse here, but D&D had every reason in the world, and in their own damned story,

not to rape Sansa. There’s the fact that she already had the motivation to want to reclaim her home (or even if they felt the Red Wedding wasn’t enough, Rickon was about to turn up). There’s the fact that no matter how you spin it, marrying an enemy is not actually a path to revenge and no person with a working mind would agree to such an arrangement, especially knowing that said enemy was about to be attacked by a large host. Heck, there’s the fact that Sansa staying in the Vale this whole time actually would have made more sense with how her 11th hour save at the Battle of the Bastards played out, since sticking her in the North required her to withhold crucial tactical information from Jon.

Tell me one thing about where Sansa is now that couldn’t have been accomplished without her rape.

So we’re back to the fact that D&D felt *this story* was crucial to tell—this story with this particular endpoint where Sansa got a spectacularly gruesome, violent revenge on Ramsay. She could have sentenced him to death and had Jon behead him. She could have brought up any of his other victims to at the least give us a small sense of justice in the framing (I guess she mentioned his dogs, to be fair, but funny how Rickon, Theon, Lord Cerwyn, the “North Remembers” Lady, or the thousands of slaughtered Northmen didn’t come up). But no. This was the dramatically satisfying story that needed to be on our screens, and rape was the plot device that needed to spur Sansa to become a smarter, stronger woman.

Which…okay, it’s the story they wanted to tell, and like I said, there are survivors who respond violently to their abusers. But this is also the story they’re telling with

every character in the show, which makes its inclusion just completely superfluous. Or sorry, Cogman, but “gratuitous.” We get it: violence and revenge is the path to empowerment. Women who are violent can be On Top, just like men! I guess it’s

that there’s going to be an exploration in the toll this takes, but given that we’re six seasons in and so many moments of violent revenge were framed as a very strong positive… Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.

Actually, case and point of this might be the fact that the few instances where someone committing an act of violence was framed as a negative were virtually indistinguishable from the moments we were meant to cheer with, a point Gretchen hammered on beautifully in her revisiting of “acedia” in current media.

As an example, I know that when Cersei “chose violence” in the hallway scene with the Faith Militant, we weren’t supposed to side with her. But why not, exactly? A bunch of destructive fanatics who oversaw her sexual humiliation wanted to drag her out of her home and present her to the man who ordered it in the first place without giving a single reason. Why isn’t it noble for Cersei to want revenge (or in that case just defend herself, really), but it’s okay for Sansa to feed Ramsay to dogs?

Even blowing up the sept or having Septa Unella tortured…yes, these were completely over-the-top acts of violence, but is it so very different than Arya killing two men, grinding them into pies, feeding them to Walder Frey, and then slitting his throat? With the sept, it’s almost more justifiable given that Cersei was backed into a corner and had no other recourse; it was clear the trial process was complete corrupt if Loras’s trial, or the inquisition hearing of last season, was anything to go by. So what was she supposed to do, exactly?

But no, any time Cersei wanted revenge, or tried to claim her own agency, we weren’t meant to side with her. The best example of this disconnect might be in a scene with Olenna. Cersei suggested combining forces and taking out the Faith (even though they just had done exactly that the episode prior and it failed), and Olenna refused, calling Cersei “the most vile person” she had ever met. I mean even ignoring that Olenna literally murdered her son so there’s a pot and a kettle situation here, why is it then that when Olenna decides to team up with Ellaria and Varys for revenge, we’re meant to agree with her, but when Cersei suggests basically the same exact thing, only for a threat that is quite a bit more present and actively harmful towards Olenna’s family, it’s unsympathetic? Because the only thing I can think is that Cersei is a designated “bad guy” and Olenna is a designated “good guy.” Which means that there’s actually nothing separating protagonists and antagonists but marketing. Or sometimes costumes.

This is because everyone needs to be motivated by violent revenge, or else they’re going to go the way of the hapless victims who weren’t Tough enough to survive, like Loras, Margaery, or Septon Ray.

Daenerys burning down a culture’s social structure and gaining followers = good. Cersei burning down a culture’s social structure and gaining followers = bad. I guess we can talk about the dark grey vs. grey nature of these social structures, but it’s not as though the Faith Militant’s homophobic crusade allowed for much more lightness in the palette. Though what’s truly mystifying to me is that good or bad, both of these actions apparently supported a very feminist message because the women ended up triumphing as a result. Like, the narrative has to completely contort itself so that they do, as I pointed out in Part 1.

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I didn’t fully mention Ellaria and the Sand Snakes murdering their own family is because I still have no idea if we’re meant to take it as a positive or negative. When the first episode aired, I immediately argued that these women are evil and not supposed to be gaining audience sympathy, but now I realize that perhaps I had been too generous, and that Ellaria’s “weak men will never rule Dorne again” remark was supposed to be taken at face value? That we were supposed to agree about how useless Doran and Trystane were for trying to bring about peace, and applaud these women for their initiative. Because as villainous as this seemed, they’re now teaming up with Daenerys and Olenna, who are unquestionably protagonists, though damn if I know why. It’s team #WomenOnTop defeating the patriarchy through violence! Even though said violence is upholding the very patriarchal values they supposedly object to.

Actions don’t matter, just who’s doing them. And that’s because actions on

Game of Thrones are a foregone conclusion. It’s impossible for there to be a remotely feminist message when all characters are locked into a violent and revenge-worshipping mold. Because if actions don’t matter between protagonists and antagonists, they sure as hell don’t matter between men and women. It’s not women on top of this show; it’s David Benioff and Dan Weiss’s mold for the ideal hero — a mold of toxic masculinity that is utterly sexist no matter what gender is cast into it.

Tags:  Benioff and Weiss empowerment Game of Thrones GoT sexism toxic masculinity violence women on top

Kylie is a person on 9/10 occasions. She is an Associate Editor for Fandom Following and a co-host of The Fanwankers podcast.

Separated At Draft: Gene Belcher and Steven Universe

“(and apparently in their first draft they forgot entirely that losing his right hand would have been a handicap for him until George R.R. Martin pointed that out).” I’m still reading the rest of the article but I had to comment on this because holy fuck. We joke about how they’ve only read a 3-page summary of AFFC and ADWD but… where is the lie in that…

It’s a doorstopper, lol. The linked article I got that from is something special, btw. I think my favorite part is that what we ended up getting was the re-written and re-choreographed fight scene. Like…there are drafts of this show…

Pingback: The Fallacy of GoT's ‘Women on Top’ Part 1: Setting - Fandom Following()

Pingback: The Fallacy of GoT's 'Women on Top' Part 2: Characters()

I also think that the show intends for us to like and sympathize with Ellaria Sand. We’re supposed to admire the fact that she had the entire Martell family killed for being “weak.” (“weak” = not as obsessed with revenge as D&D are).

A friend and I were actually talking about Sansa’s “empowered” killing of Ramsay the other day. We were discussing how out of character and troubling that smirk was, and how we would rewrite that ending scene (assuming we couldn’t change any other part of the narrative). One idea that we came up with was this: After setting the dogs on Ramsay, have Sansa walk away, and as soon as she is around the corner, her strong and unemotional facade breaks. Shaking, she covers her ears to block out the sounds of the dogs.

While that idea of course isn’t perfect, I just feel like it would have been better to see the Sansa that hates violence, even when it’s happening to her abuser. I just want a character in this show who is good and gentle.

But you can’t have that! Being good, gentle and compassionate would make her WEAK! The only way to be Strong (TM) is to suppress all emotion, other than anger and hatred and a desire for revenge, to enjoy violence, and to sadistically murder people – which makes you Empowered. Didn’t you get the memo?

GoT season 6 is a culmination of a certain general trend in fandom and pop culture to value characters, male or female, only for their “badassery”, which is usually defined as ability to beat people in a fight (or kill, or burn/blow up stuff, etc.). Although sassy remarks or unemotional stoicism also help. Or, best of all, unemotional stoicism with an occasional sassy one-liner while beating someone in a fight or killing them. And when female characters are portrayed like that, they are praised for being Strong Female Characters, regardless of whether they actually are Strong Characters in the sense of having their own arc, motivations, complex and plausible characterizations and character development. (As an old article from several years ago pointed out, people were asking for Strong Characters (Female), and filmmakers misunderstood that as the desire for (Strong Female) Characters, where “a strong female” is defined by things such as the ability to beat up dudes in a fight.)

An obvious example was Brienne in season 4 – D&D must have been patting themselves on the backs for writing such a “feminist” thing as Brienne beating Sandor in a fight. Because, clearly, what’s female empowerment all about, but women’s ability to beat up men in a physical fight? And not just any man, but a huge, muscled guy who’s a top warrior and was previously shown beating several dudes at once. Yay! BNever mind that Brienne was at the same time shown as bullheaded and ridiculously incompetent, unable to solve any problem by talking and/or thinking, not to mention that, in the show version, she wasn’t even able to make up her mind to try to fulfil her vows and approach Sansa in King’s Landing to offer her her help, until her not-boyfriend Jaime gave her permission. But she’s also brash and rude to teenagers in lower social position than herself, so that balances it out. What a strong female character!

Of course, season 6 took all that to the next level with its focus on sadistic revenge/murder as an act of empowerment.

Now, there are great characters, male and female, who do fit the above description on the surface (unemotional facade, habit of using violence, blase about killing, ruthlessness, nihilism, ‘end justifies the means mentality’, etc.), but are actually fleshed out, complex characters who are actually show to be traumatized by their experiences, the things they have done and the choices that they have had to make, and we’re not supposed to see them as role models. But this is not what D&D are doing. They clearly belong to those who see any display of trauma other than Revenge as a sign of Weakness. Very often, fans and media don’t like “badass” characters displaying real signs of trauma, being vulnerable, having PTSD or depression, etc, Whenver a :female protagonist has such a storyline, there’s a huge backclash from the fandoms, which complains that the character is “whiny”, “emo” and “unlikable”. And for male characters – well, crying, being traumatized or vulnerable is just unmanly. Fortunately for D&D, they have no interest in realistically portraying trauma, so they aren’t likely to face any such backclash. See how they’ve portrayed Sandor, and how popular their portrayal is, even with some of the book readers, who say they prefer the Funny Badass with chicken jokes from the show. Or how they dealt with Theon’s trauma. Or Jaime’s. Or Tyrion’s.

I just tried to remember the last female character I’d seen on screen that wasn’t a badass who fought and committed violence and was completely and utterly a – okay with it and the only two characters I could think off were Korra from Legend of Korra and Katara from Legend of Aang. Oh, and May from Agents of SHIELD, but even with her it’s… well, a “sort of”. Maybe it’s because I don’t watch a lot of current TV shows like OitnB or Orphan Black or Quantico or whatever, but I really can’t think of any other female character that doesn’t fit your description of badass = violence + stoicism + witty remarks.

Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games. Now, she is a stoic action girl, but not because she thinks emotions suck or because she likes violence, but because she is a traumatized teenager who’s had to fight for survival since the age of 11, so she’s socially awkward/emotionally repressed, and she’s also very protective – particularly of her younger sister, as well as other people she cares about – and she doesn’t actually *like* violence at all. Some even argue that she has been suffering from PTSD since her father’s death, but she is most certainly suffering from PTSD after her first Hunger Games, and it gets worse afterwards, particularly all through the last book, Mockingjay, where she is suffering from severe depression. Almost all of the characters in that series are severely traumatized, particularly all those who participated in the Games, and in Mockingjay, also as a result of the war – which was necessary to topple the terrible regime they lived in, but is still terrible in itself. Now, while the traumas and characters’ mental issues are more obvious in the books, the film series did a pretty good job of conveying that, at least in the second and third film (Catching Fire and Mockingjay part 1). It’s not a perfect adaptation, but unlike GoT, it sticks to the spirit of the original. However, I was disappointed with the last film in the series, Mockingjay part 2, because it focused too much on the action and downplayed the psychological and physical scars that the characters are left with. Another interesting female character is that series if Johanna Mason, who is, on the surface, the feisty, sassy, in your face ‘badass’ character, and more ruthless than Katniss, but who is also shown to have deep traumas and mental problems as a result of being tortured. The last film downplayed that as well.

I have to say that the reactions of many in the book fandom are quite typical of the backclash I was talking about in my previous post. The last book was disliked by many exactly because it was too depressing and showed that even the characters who got a happy ending still have the psychological scars from what they had gone through, and that it never actually goes away. I’ve also seen articles on influential websites that claimed that book Katniss is “unlikeable” and that it’s much easier to like her in the films because we aren’t in her head (although that article was published after the first film, which didn’t go much into her head). Which reminds me of fan comments that GoT made Catelyn, Sansa, Dany, Sandor etc. “more likeable”. Katniss in the last book, Mockingjay, was particularly harshly criticized in the fandom for being both “weak” and “whiny” and “self-centered” because she was going through severe depression instead of just going out and Kicking Ass, and a hateful bitch, because she wasn’t able to be nice, caring and forgiving to her love interest all the time while they were both grappling with their traumas and mental issues.

It was pretty similar to many fans’ hatred of Buffy in later seasons of the show. Buffy started off as a bubbly, confident, wisecracking teenage heroine, but as a result of a number of really terrible things happening to her, she had a very believable character development where she became darker and showed clear signs of PTSD on several occasions, and finally had a season-long arc about depression, in season 6, which is highly polarizing. She was criticized for being “not fun anymore”, an unlikeable bitch, and, again, weak and “whiny” and annoying. Even some notable feminist websites have criticized Buffy as “emotionally weak” and claimed that she’s not really a SFC because, for instance, she could be emotionally hurt by her love interests, or because she cared about her friends’ opinions. One notable feminist critic on Youtube similarly criticized Katniss post-first book because she disappointed her by proving not to be a Strong Woman Who Needs No Man, and was reluctant and unsure about leading a rebellion. Which all seem like pretty detrimental criticisms to make, if you actually want female characters to be portrayed as complex, flawed, fully fleshed out, relatable people with character development, arcs and issues to overcome, rather than the one-dimensional caricatures lampooned by Kate Beaton.

I haven’t Legend of Korra or Legend of Aang, but May from Agents of SHIELD, and Carol from The Walking Dead, strike me as characters who are explicitly portrayed as emotionally damaged by the violence they had to commit and decisions they had to make – the former as a part of her job, the latter for survival in the post-apocalyptic world – but the fandom and the media keeps ignoring that and instead focusing on how “kickass” they are. Now, it’s great to see a story of a woman who was an abuse victim grow stronger and become self-relliant like Carol, but as seasons went by, she became more and more ruthless and did some disturbing things, even for the standards of TWD, which was clearly not something she was happy about – but for most media sites, she was just “a total badass”, until the show explicitly made her come to the point where she decided “I can’t do this anymore”.

May on AoS was always portrayed as someone who’s been traumatized by the things she had to do as a part of her job, and who’s clearly not happy. She doesn’t even seem to like herself much (she told Andrew she could never understand why someone so caring and compassionate like him would love her). But a lot of the fandom/reviewers just seem to see her as the kickass lady and think that all female characters should be like her, instead of being “whiny” and not burying their emotions and traumas to just shut up and continue doing the job . In-universe, Skye/Daisy saw her as a role model and tried to be more like her, because she wanted to be “stronger” and learn to use “hate fu” as a result of what happened in season 1 with Ward. But arguably, that maybe wasn’t the healthiest way for her to deal. Of course, she’s now facing a backclash from fandom for being “whiny” and “emo” etc. just like Buffy or Katniss did before.

Speaking of which, I remember reading some reviews of AoS season 2, I think it was maybe on AW Club, and realizing that the reviewers’ ideas of what makes a good character are very different from mine. For instance, one review was gushing about how great it is that Mockingbird was introduced to the show after her first episode, and what a great character she is, because… as they explained, because of her way with fighting with batons. Uh, OK. Then later the reviewer, or maybe the commentars, were going on about how Skye/Daisy used to be annoying and nothing special but has finally become a great character because she has coo powers and had a great fight scene where she beat multiple Hydra guards. At that point I realized that I’ll never be able to relate to that the comic book fanboy mentality where the value of a character is all about cool powers and fighting moves.

Claire Frasier on Outlander doesn’t commit acts of violence easily or without feeling shock and regret afterward even when it’s against a foe. I feel like Buffy grappled with these issues much more than a lot of female heroes of modern shows do. Also Willow had to see the consequences of her own revenge for Tara’s death.Hell, Buffy had more problems coming back from the dead than Jon did. For a show geared at teens, it dealt much more maturely with many of these themes than this adult drama, Game of Thrones.

“Hell, Buffy had more problems coming back from the dead than Jon did.”

Ugh, no kidding. Buffy’s story about dealing with coming back from the dead spanned an entire season; Jon’s story about dealing with his resurrection spanned … two minutes? And that’s if we consider his talk with Melisandre about the lack of an afterlife (which Mel was far more interested in) to be a part of ‘dealing with resurrection’.

You know what’s funny, is that critics will probably always look at Buffy as frivolous youth oriented entertainment and give GOT all this praise as an ‘adult fantasy,’ but it’s actually the more immature show. It’s crazy that Kit had to fight to be able to have his character grieve Ygritte’s death. This is characterization 101 and they needed an actor to remind them of this.

It’s pretty obvious they no longer care about characterization at all. The characters are mere puppets to the plot, with no consistent personality of their own. Sansa is the worst victim of this, of course, but frankly, all of the major characters suffer from this. For example, the ‘Cherylization’ of Carol: Carol was a helpless victim of the patriarchy and constantly put upon by everyone except Larry for about three-fourths of this season (as well as the past couple of seasons); then overnight, she morphed into supervillain Cheryl and decided to mass murder everyone who had ever slightly annoyed her.

I think GoT is only “more adult” than Buffy in the sense of “adult entertainment”, i.e.: you see more boobs and butts.

I think you’re right. It’s code words for sexually explicit sex scenes and being able to use Fuck in every other sentence. It’s not mature story telling but they want to market it as such so adults feel okay watching a fantasy show which has degraded into ‘tits and dragons’.

To be honest, if you were going to change the ending scene without changing the rest of the Sansa narrative, I think you can’t have Sansa setting the dogs on Ramsay without it being troubling. It’s a cruel and unusual punishment. They really should’ve let the woman who passes the sentence swing the sword and execute him in a way that represents justice rather than an endless cycle of vengeance; otherwise in that scenario it just looks like Sansa is unable to handle the consequences of inflicting pain of others.

I think that there is no way to use that scene without it destroying Sansa’s characterization. I’m a broken record, but I would have preferred her enact The Old Way, in public, reciting his crimes and having Jon behead him. She’d be paralleling her father instead of her abuser. It’s so important that the Northerners that have been victimized by the Boltons see Stark justice restored. By doing what Ramsay, has done himself to victims, shows that this cycle of brutality could be repeated.

I was eager for the third part of your essay and I’m happy to say it did not disappoint.

Especially good point on “good characters” actions vs “bad characters” actions. This is incredibly lazy writing.

This was the worst part of GoT’s feminist fallacy for me: that the only way a women can be empowered is through violence. I mean, sure, there could be an interesting commentary there – like “look how far we have to go to get any kind of power because this world is so fucked up” – but there isn’t. We’re clearly supposed to find them badasses because we’re supposed to find violence badass. Sure, this is part of a bigger industry trend that desensitizes us to violence and uses it as a means of empowerment, but it’s the opposite of Martin’s books: ASOIAF is all about the costs of war (meaning that sometimes you HAVE to go to war, violence is the path for you, but that doesn’t come lightly or without consequences) and the futility of revenge. And for a tv show that is supposed to adapt those books, GoT seems to be trying to “fix” this “weak men” message.

And people are buying it, because of course they are.

I think one of the worst parts of GoT season 6 and its finale was what they did with Cersei, actually. As you wrote in the article yourself, she essentially does the same thing that Daenerys does in Vaes Dothrak,

just to to other white people. But with Daenerys, we were supposed to see it as a good thing while Cersei was clearly a villain because she blew up the Sept, the High Septon/Sparrow and everyone else.

The thing is, I could even understand that the same action can be once constructed as good and once as bad because of the circumstances in which they were committed, but at the end of the day, the circumstances weren’t even that different: Daenerys burned the Khals because they wanted to rape her, enslave her and keep her from power, Cersei blew up the High Sparrow, Margaery, Kevan Lannister and everyone else in that Sept because they forced her to walk naked through the city, humiliating her, and were keeping her from power. The circumstances & political situations aren’t fundamentally different, especially because the so far, in the conflict between the High Sparrow and Cersei&Jaime, we were sort of supposed to root for Cersei & Jaime, weren’t we?

The literal only difference is that Daenerys killed a bunch of brown people by blowing up their holy place then proclaimed herself queen over them while Cersei did the same thing to white people. Honestly. I’ve been thinking this over for a while now, but that is literally the only difference I see between these situations that isn’t “well one of them is clearly the Good Guy and the other one is clearly the Bad Guy.”

Also, there’s another parallel between Dany and Cersei: if they didn’t “choose violence”, would the consequences really be so bad in a world where actions had logical consequences?

The Khals didn’t threaten to rape Dany until she called them “weak men” and called them unfit to lead the Dothraki. If she had accepted her fate, she would have been given an honoured place among the Dosh Khaleen, the ruling class of the Dothraki. Even if we’re going by the show!verse where the Dosh Khaleen’s authority doesn’t seem to be that respected, Daario and Jorah were in the city and she could have slipped away with them in the night. From Dany’s perspective before she made that choice, she had a strong probability of being killed by the Dothraki for the murder of the Khals at the time of being accused as a “witch”, and she had literally 2 supporters in the city and nothing to legitmise her rule as khaleesi of all the Dothraki. From a retrospective view, she wouldn’t have got such a mega army but the Dothraki seemed to disappear for the Battle of Meereen (presumably she would’ve still got Drogon back) and she would’ve still got the Tyrell-Targaryen-Sand-Yara alliance to help her in her invasion of Westeros.

Then in Cersei’s storyline: so, the trial by combat was forbidden (which goes against the in-verse view of the winner having the holy blessing of the gods). But despite it being framed that Cersei was going to lose… there’s a strong reverse honeypot that trial by combat was banned to further guarantee Cersei’s win, and the HS told the septons to find her innocent (heck, maybe the HS would’ve even told her about it when Lancel was randomly looking for her and she “chose violence”). I mean, think about it. The High Sparrow is hell-bent on keeping this “new alliance between Faith and Crown” and that requires keeping the most pious king since Baelor on the throne. If Cersei’s found guilty of incest… bye bye TomTom’s crown. Not to mention that she also had a great chance of being killed in a world that made sense, for queenslaying, deicide and the murder of a lord paramount as a disgraced dowager queen, and her claim’s really shoddy considering that even if a dowager takes power in Westeros, it’s expected to return to the husband’s line (see Donella Manderly Hornwood… or I guess she “won by right of conquest?”). And in a logical world, literally nobody would support a disgraced dowager queen who killed all those people and burned down half the city, putting herself on the same level as Aerys II and Maegor I before she ascended to the throne, as their rightful liege. So in a way she would’ve been better off being found innocent and living her days out as a disgraced dowager queen or returning to CR to rule the Westerlands (if she’s even Lady of CR in the show), and her son wouldn’t have committed suicide.

So, essentially, because of the sheer illogical nature of the violence and the fact that in a logical world, Dany and Cersei would gain 0 followers and probably be killed, violence was not empowering and Dany and Cersei would probably have the same amount of power if not actually be better off in the long-run in Cersei’s case if they didn’t commit violence.

Well the High Sparrow didn’t seem particularly concerned with political pragmatics given that he locked up the heir to Highgarden and his sister, which really should have had repercussions. Like…food-holding from the city or war repercussions. But luckily Olenna is an Idiot Ball professional (and the official representative of House Tyrell).

Because apparently having gay sex and perjuring oneself are monstrous crimes compared to petty things such as a queen committing adultery when the king was alive and being on trial for incest and regicide.

Carol’s Landing is so special because the same small council scenes and Sparrow speeches are repeated over and over again and nothing happens yet there’s still a gold mine for illogic,

The HS setting up the trial so that Carol would win is my new reverse honeypot now.

And now, Olenna isn’t just the Tyrell representative, but is now Lady of Highgarden (because Mina and Janna don’t exist in the show!verse or the Tyrell cousins?). Women On Top! TM

So I just rewatched Cheryl’s Landing over the weekend and the repetition is off-the charts. It’s even worse than I remember.

The only issue with your reverse honeypot (and this is because “the show is devoid of logic, Jon Snow”), is that the HS still sent armed bullies to harass poor Carol, and given that she “chose violence” (and he could reasonably assume she was supportive of the Tyrell host), he really should have taken it upon himself to give her the *wink wink*. Though I guess further into the pot we go, how could he reasonably assume she’d blow everyone up?

I don’t envy people who want to make sense of the plotline this year; they have their work cut out for them.

I don’t get the Tyrell family tree at all. There were scantily clad Reach ladies in the sept that blew, so maybe one of them was Megga?

Well I guess there’s no division between the Poor Fellows and the Warrior’s Sons, and every member of the Faith Militant is a monk with a cudgel and a star carved into his head. And they could be trying to escort Carol to the HS and serve as guardsmen, idk. I think the overarching logic of the repercussions of Carol/Cheryl losing her trial outweighs Lancel being a bit overzealous.

As for the Tyrell cousins, according to the wiki, there’s no other members of House Tyrell apart from “Tyrell Lady” (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrell_lady) who calls Olenna “nana” (So, she’s Desmera Redwyne? Or Mace has a brother in the show!verse?), but the wiki says that “it is very possible that all of the Tyrell cousins died in the destruction of the Great Sept of Baelor”). And I guess the scantily clad Reach ladies could possibly be non-Tyrells such as Taena Merryweather, Alyce Graceford or Meredyth Crane (oh wait, she’s a dead Braavosi actress now), and apparently one’s confirmed to be Mira Forrester from the Telltale Game of Thrones videogame (because a member of the Northern Wolfswood clans would totally be a lady-in-waiting to a Tyrell queen).

Heres to all the characters who lost all their qualities at the expense of making Ramsay the perfect specimen of a villain sue:

Yara Greyjoy – who lost the ability to kill a man whilst he takes his delicate time to open a cage.

Littlefinger – who lost his cunning mind by having him believe a man with a flayed man on his banner would be anything but suspicious.

Sansa Stark – Had her story from the first four seasons disregarded by retconning her story entirely. The writers didn’t want Sansa being in the minority of characters who hates violence. However, Ramsay Sue fixed that, perfect! Who needs unique character traits when you can have Arya 2.0?

Stannis Baratheon – Somehow the best military commander in westeros forgot what scouts were in two scenarios just because the writers couldn’t find a scenario where he would naturally lose. This went against their creative idea of having him become hated by burning Shireen just so the audience can cheer when Brienne the brute kills an unarmed wounded man. We can’t have complicated characters. Oh no.

Roose Bolton – Some how, the man who raised a psychopath would think hugging his son who made no secret of envy when it became clear he wouldn’t inherit winterfell, Oops. One would think killing his father would be another hole in the sinking boat. Good news here’s Lord Umber willing to betray and hand over his Liege Lord for no reason. Phew! it’s a good thing 8000 years of tradition came an abrupt halt! Everything’s coming up Ramsay!

Jon Snow – Despite being educated by a soldier and his experience leading men. Jon had to be an inferior commander because Jon is certainly not the type who would put his personal needs before the needs of many! We also can’t let him have a fighting chance, so we’ll give the smallest army possible by having every northern Lord forget the meaning of the North remembers. What red wedding you ask?

The Yara vs. Ramsey thing to rescue Theon annoyed me so much because Ramsey was shirtless the whole time. Someone take a swipe at his belly with a sword and end it. Gut wounds are not something you can come back from when the most advanced medical treatments you have are leeching and prayer.

Ordinarily, I’d agree with you, however, we’ve seen one main character get stabbed in the gut and be fine after some amateur medical attention and a good night’s sleep, so why not two? Note: this only applies to main characters. Background characters react to getting stabbed as you would expect.

The most advanced medical treament available is in fact Lady Crane’s soup. It heals gut wounds overnight so well that you’re fit to parkour and fall off buildings the next morning. Not to mention, win a swordfight in the dark.

I’m going to make a small defense of Jon. It’s clear that Jon executes the mutineers out of his obligation to do so due to the laws of the Night’s Watch, but he doesn’t take any pleasure in it and the execution makes it harder for Sansa to convince him to march on Winterfell. It’s pretty funny how everyone was celebrating Olly’s death on Twitter, never mind what Jon says about it.

“I’m done fighting. It’s all I’ve done since I left home. I’ve killed brothers of the

Night’s Watch. I’ve killed wildlings. I’ve killed men that I admire. I

Of course, as you’ve stated, anyone who gets tired of violence is seen as weak and he changes his tune later in the episode, but at least Olly’s death isn’t portrayed as a triumph, just as regrettable but necessary.

Is it that clear though? The framing of Jon executing them, then declaring his watch is ended and walking away was only missing a glasses bull and a The Who riff, in my opinion – you definitely got a revenge-ish feeling from it.

Furthermore, Jon was stabbed by a whole bunch of people. He chose to execute four. One big name, two whats-their-faces and a traumatized 14 year old boy. The other ten or so people who stabbed him get to walk free. Focusing on Olly the way they did gave it an “it’s personal” vibe, no matter how Jon talked about it in the following episode. I’d mark that down more for inconsistency and 8 second drama.

Kind of a sidenote, but how gross is it that people are happy about a little kid dying? I mean seriously, not matter what he does, he’s still just a kid. (Not that I’m sad the character’s gone, I just think it says something about the general fandom that they’re cheering about a kid dying)

I see the appeal of making kickass female characters for “empowerment”, I really do.

But why does Game of Thrones do it in the most morally reprehensible or outright unhinged manner every single time?

Cersei is totally empowered by becoming the medieval Unabomber! And so is Arya for slitting some old dudes throat. Or what about smiling as you watch some dude get torn apart be dogs? Or burning people alive? Or murdering your own family?

I mean, it almost feels backhanded. Like “You want them to be them crazy feminists? We’ll make them crazy feminists!”

This is why I say sometimes that this show is Poe’s law. Are they purposely parodying feminism, or are they so bad in their understanding that it accidentally is a perfect parody? Who can tell?!

I still don’t know how there’s a general consensus that Olenna is more heroic than Carol. More heroic than Cheryl, of course, fighting a war against the monarch who exploded one’s entire family along with the entire religious authority is just in universe, but really, how are we supposed to cheer for Olenna calling the mother of her murder victim the most vile person she’s met?

And of course, Faullaria and the Fakes are Scrappys among the viewers, but I really think that Benioff and Weiss intended them to be Oberyn’s cool gf and daughters that we’re supposed to cheer for. I mean, assassinating the heir to the Iron Throne, one’s liege lord and his heir and therefore, in a logical world, guaranteeing a Lannister invasion of Dorne and/or the Dornish lords amassing against the Fakes (I guess the Small Council was too busy trying to stop the High Septon by doing nothing before the Tyrell army threatened to storm the Great Sept of Baelor while the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard forgot to secure the king and the other members of the kingsguard. Also, how did literally nobody outside King’s Landing minus Freys seem to care about Lannister authority in season 6 seeing how all rebels but Balon had been defeated at the beginning of the season?).

I’m more and more convinced that Sansa will become a villain in the final seasons. I mean, yes, the choice to write Jon as KitN over her was due to favouritism and him being the designated protagonist, but they clearly didn’t just forget about her as the scene ended with Sansa and BatFinger looking at one another. And I mean her becoming a villain that the audience is supposed to cheer for because nihilism. This is the story about a girl who believed in songs learning to grow up and become an Empowered Vengeful Violent Woman who understands the grimdark ways of the world, which I think is the antithesis of Sansa Stark’s canon plotline.

The thing is: as much as I hate to think that the plot line you suggest for Salsa is a possibility, once I take D&D’s perspective it actually becomes not just a possibility but a probability and that is so depressing I’m going to need a drink.

Whoa. Just whoa. This is the most powerful, nuanced analysis of sexist themes yet.

All I have for this is vigorous applause. Excellent piece Kylie. You’ve really brought it all together in such a cogent way.

You deserve a slice of the credit, my dear. I had your Acedia pieces up on a second monitor through half of the writing process, lol

I still don’t understand why they think ignoring critique is a praiseworthy move. Did they forget that listening to critique is how you improve? Cause that’s been drummed into me in every class since kindergarten and I don’t think things are THAT different in the US… are they?

Also still bitter that they threw away a Cat-lookalike, with whom they could have had Arya bond and explore the emotional implications of losing her mother (which they seemed to have forgotten about beyond her stabbing that one guy). Also, you know, positive female interactions could have existed.

Imagine how invested we’d feel in Arya’s plotline next year if she had chosen to join the acting troupe and was traveling with people she vaguely liked back to Westeros. How would she navigate that situation? What path would she ultimately choose when she and her nice eyebrows could have a fairly happy life?

One of the uglier ideas to come to the fore in recent years is the idea that oppression, systemic discrimination, poverty, etc. are things that you can will or identify your way out of. It’s an attitude that says that a person is only as poor and/or repressed as they think they are and if the can’t or won’t empower themselves, well maybe they deserve their lot in life. While I doubt it was D&D’s intention, this attitude is front and centre in season 6.

Interestingly, ASoIaF provides a direct commentary on this type of attitude through Cersei Lannister. Cersei fully embraces every nasty sexist stereotype in Westerosi society, but she believes that she is the exception. The ONLY exception (she’s not like other girls!). Thus, it is right and just that Westerosi society (outside of Dorne)

largely bars women from ruling or participating in public life on the

basis of their sex. If other women were as strong and special as Cersei Lannister, they too would have the right to rule, and it would be very wrong to deny them that right, but unfortunately, none of them are.

Right, and meanwhile, D&D portrayed Cersei as (accidentally maybe?) the only feminist character on the show for the past couple of years. She was saving young women from Pycelle’s creeping, she was dealing with sexism in the workplace, and she was doing everything she could to carve out as much agency for herself in a refusal to be relegated (remember when Tommen wanted her shipped of to Casterly Rock?). Their misunderstanding of the source material would be funny if, you know, the reception was different.

Oh dear Heavens, what a doorstopper of an article … and yet it would be hard to cut it down. In fact, it would probably be easier to double it in length than half it.

Anyways, I agree with it, especially the whole violent-empowered-women thing.

(and my heart missed a beat when you mentioned that GRRM himself had to remind them that it’s hard to hold a sword if you’re missing your swordhand. Someone should point Skallagrim out to them. He’s doing sword-related videos on youtube, had a shoulder injury, and then problems demonstrating even easy things for weeks. Of course, from him it’s only a short step to Lindybeige, who’s regularly making videos showing everything wrong with historical shows, and no Showrunner of something even slightly similar ever watches his videos, that seems to be a fundamental law of the universe)

Also, fair warning, white dude speaking about feminism.

At least for me, it’s not necessarily the woman-violence in this show that makes it so disturbing to watch. It’s that, as you said, it’s presented without alternative, as the only sensible option.

, even though I know a lot of people found it problematic, because you get the violent secret men-murdering revenge women, but you also get Mary Watson, who supports a votes-for-women campain, is a detective in her own right and working for Mycroft, and most definitely not satisfied with the society she lives in. And instead of being unimportant, she’s the one who finds the secret society and points them out to Holmes. And of course, then comes Moriarty and mocks the whole concept of a secret society (“speaking as a criminal mastermind, we don’t really have gongs”). Add to that that you know that it’s not the violent approach that ultimately succeeded, and it’s very hard to get any further away from what D&D did.

, a classic Doctor Who story that first aired in 1977. In it, you get Leela, a woman of a stone-age-like tribe, as the Doctor’s companion (and therefore, second main character). She’s well-versed in martial arts and does fight every now and then (though at least in this story, she’s always overpowered. To be fair, the story’s antagonist always had at least five of his minions set on her every time that happened), and actively contributes to the Doctor’s investigation. She most certainly doesn’t wait for a male gaze of approval before she does anything. And while the story is full of all sorts of clichés and other problems (especially with the chinamen featured as antagonists), I get the weird feeling that this 40-year-old story is more progressive than some of the stuff that’s today lauded as

Absolutely brilliant, Kylie. I have a feeling I’ll be linking this essay for years to come.

P.S. I love that you linked to “The Brain that Changes Itself” – it’s the book that made me want to become a neurologist.

Aw, thanks. And I’ve got my sister to thank for that reference; she’s working on a phd in marriage and family therapy and talks about her neuroscience courses a good deal

I’m still not over the audacity of a noble, white man explaining slavery to black ex-slaves.

Critics across the board were like, “it was *supposed* to be uncomfortable!” And that’s…great? Except that the narrative bent over backwards to show that Tyrion really was the dude that had all the answers. Okay, his Plan A blew up in his face, but without him, Deadpan would have empowerdly burnt everyone to the ground. And of course Missandei and Grey Worm carried out everything he asked, defended him to other former slaves, etc. The season ends with Deadpan rewarding Tyrion with the handship, and we were clearly supposed to think it was earned.

So this whole supposed progressive commentary on shitty ally-ship falls apart with the end message, and this is ignoring the fact that if this commentary was supposed to be going on, 90% of the scenes with Tyrion, Missandei, and Grey Worm were them locked in a room together for “comedy.”

Well, there’s something to feel something about. They almost wrote story arcs for both Sansa and Arya that would, in the hands of a self aware writer not jerking off to the idea of vengeance, be great for showing the down sides. You went over Arya, and Sansa agreed to the “gofphic horrrorr” gratuitous rape subplot because Littlefinger tempted her with avenging her family. However unaware and jerking off to the idea of vengeance is one of the main things that drives this narrative.

Honestly, the only way for this series to make sense is to believe that each season (and in S6 each episode) exist in different continuities because the show couldn’t understand narrative consistently to save itself…well, this is a juggernaut right now, so they don’t really need to attempt to improve until they work on a new show.

Even though, all of the women in the Women on Top violence crew’s actions are at least partially motivated by violence towards someone they care about (Dany for herself, her dynasty, and anyone denied agency over their body; Sands for Oberyn; Olenna for her grandchildren; and Yara for Theon when it’s convenient for her and she’s not the one hurting him), they gotta uphold that violence because the writers want violence.

What Do Steven Universe and Bojack Horseman Have to Say About Being Saved?

Subscribe to our emailing list to be notified for Fandom Following news and apperances!