Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Erkki

Is Game of Thrones sexist?

Recommended Posts

(sorry if we've had this discussion before -- I forget)

Short opinion: yes, because of the ample nudity. Longer opinion follows (may contain a spoilers).

 

Wanted to post this thread after reading Argobot's blog post and watching the latest episode. What I wanted to say seemed too long for Twitter and probably not coherent enough for a blog post. Disclaimer: this is not all directly in response to Sarahs post -- I've read a bit on the topic of sexism in Game of Thrones before.

 

IMHO, in the fight against sexism there is this danger of taking such a strong viewpoint that we are almost thinking artists cannot portray sexists characters/worlds/whatever without being sexist themselves, or without the work being seen as sexist. My opinion on this is kind of fuzzy. Clearly it would be bad if every artist portrays sexism all the time and makes it seem normal. However, this doesn't mean that no artist should be allowed to portray sexism without condemning it.

 

I am not much into analysing all the media I consume, but GRR's Song of Ice and Fire has been one of my favourites in the past years. I don't think it needs to be defended, but...

 

In my opinion G.R.R Martin is just portraying a bleak world. It is full of misery, murder, rape, bullying and so forth. Lots of intolerance. To the highborn, the value of a lowborn life is almost nothing. Almost all of the characters are intolerant biggots. And because some (most?) of them are murderers, rapists or bullys, they will rape murder and bully. IMHO, Martin is saying: "this is a world that could be -- maybe it's close to what our world is, maybe it's not -- you be the judge". I think he has every right to portray this world and the horrible people that inhabit it.

 

I am personally not as pessimistic about humankind to think that the world Martin portrays is close to what the real world is like. Clearly as horrible things do happen in the real world, but in the book the characters are still caricatures, not meant to be taken as portrayals of real people. And the most depressing thing in that world is perhaps that all the worst people are in power (or maybe everyone else is as bad -- we are just shown the people in power more than others).

 

Sidenote: maybe Eddard Stark was the only "good" character, but that made him weak in that world and he was killed off quickly. I'm not even sure he was that good, but he tried to be. Actually Jamie Lannister might be another one who has tried to be good, in a murderous way, but who saw that it brought him only misery.

 

My point is that because of The Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones portrays a cruel, intolerant, sexist, racist, homophobic, and generally quite backwards, world, inhabited mostly by characters with the same qualities -- the work doesn't become sexist itself, nor does the author.

 

Some points I wanted to respond to directly (you'd want to read Sarah's post first):

 

* You are right, the "because you're a girl" joke seems incredibly dumb and insidious writing.

 

* "there are several scenes where different characters make ‘subtle’ allusions to the fact that Loras Tryell is gay."

 

I think that did not try to be subtle at all and they were just skirting around saying the actual word, which seemed mostly in character to me. Maybe not so much for the Queen of Thorns, whom I expected to be more direct, and who didn't seem to be homophobic at all.

 

[edit] spoilerish and wrong thing removed

 

IMHO, the real way the show (and a lot of the real world) is sexist is much more subtle(?), or at least less direct -- it shows lots of nude woman where it can because that probably brings in many male viewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion G.R.R Martin is just portraying a bleak world. It is full of misery, murder, rape, bullying and so forth. Lots of intolerance. To the highborn, the value of a lowborn life is almost nothing. Almost all of the characters are intolerant biggots. And because some (most?) of them are murderers, rapists or bullys, they will rape murder and bully. IMHO, Martin is saying: "this is a world that could be -- maybe it's close to what our world is, maybe it's not -- you be the judge". I think he has every right to portray this world and the horrible people that inhabit it.

 

I don't see the connection here. Like every writer, he has the right to portray any world he wants to portray. But that doesn't mean that he is exempt from criticism for the way he portrays the world he created. He decided to portray a world where women are sexually exploited; I don't think he engages with the issue of sexual violence in a serious way (in fact, I think he does quite the opposite); and so I don't see why he can't be criticized for it. 

 

I feel like the kind of argument you are making is that G.R.R. Martin is just documenting this horrible world, and so he can't be held accountable for what he documents. But he chose to invent that world and chose to portray it in a certain way. If a SOIaF is sexist, it is not because it depicts a grim world, but because it depicts that world in a sexist way. 

 

Caveat: I haven't seen the show and have only read the first three books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the kind of argument you are making is that G.R.R. Martin is just documenting this horrible world, and so he can't be held accountable for what he documents. But he chose to invent that world and chose to portray it in a certain way. If a SOIaF is sexist, it is not because it depicts a grim world, but because it depicts that world in a sexist way.

I wouldn't say "documenting". I also wouldn't say that he is definitely not sexist -- I have no idea. But wouldn't you say that an author can depict evil and evil characters without being evil himself or the work considered as contributing to greater evil in the world. Then it seems natural to assume that some authors may want to explore a world where everyone is evil or has an evil side at least and that does not make the author evil either.

The author may even want to go as far as depicting numerous kinds of evil -- which may include sexism, homophobia etc. what makes it different now?

After reading all the books I'm not convinced that he "depicts the world in a sexist way" (maybe occasionally? I read the first ones a long time ago), but he does portray a sexist world.

PS I forgot Brienne and Sam from my side note -- they seem totally non-evil as far as I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it seems natural to assume that some authors may want to explore a world where everyone is evil or has an evil side at least and that does not make the author evil either.

The author may even want to go as far as depicting numerous kinds of evil -- which may include sexism, homophobia etc. what makes it different now?

Of course this also goes the other way and everyone can have different reactions. Being grossed by some such portrayals is totally valid. And in fact all criticism is probably as valid as any piece of art as is criticism of criticism of criticism.

But having read a few feminist critiques of authors such as GRR Martin and Robert Jordan (both of whom at least have lots of female characters), it seems to me that among some there's a tendency of extrapolating personal feelings of being grossed about something that happens to a woman into accusations that the work is sexist. And the possibility that the thing being portrayed is sexist (as opposed to portrayed in a sexist way) often not considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if GRRM were actively deciding to portray a sexist world, I think he would probably want to at least be clever enough to do it in a way besides making it work exactly the way sexist things work in all other media with absolutely no surprised whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that I don't necessarily think that Game of Thrones is sexist. I think that the HBO show has a lot of problems with how women are represented -- most notably the use of sexual violence as a plot device -- and I have always been bothered by this representation; usually I can ignore it because the positive aspects of the show outweigh the negative, but last night's episode was particularly gratuitous (at least for me, other people might not take issue with it, which, fine).

 

I've never read Martin's books (I tried reading the second book but gave up), so I can't really speak about them in any way. My only knowledge of this universe and its characters are what the TV show presents, so that's what I'm basing my opinion on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's useful to compare to, say, The Walking Dead; now, we know Robert Kirkman's definitely sexist (he's revealed as much in interviews) and has portrayed his female characters in a way that he thinks is consistent with reality.

 

GoT also represents its characters in a way that the creators think is consistent with the reality of how people act, with the added complication that they're in a society that excuses deeply problematic behaviour and has rempant inequality. The attitudes towards women don't seem universal - the Northerners seem to be more equal, for instance - and even when there's clear misogyny going on, there are still plenty of female characters who are presented as capable, with their own unique personalities. I suspect that most of this comes from Martin, though; I think the structuring of the TV show and the uncomfortable sexposition in the early parts of the series is a more telling assumption.

 

It's possible there's some more insidious assumptions going on I'm blind to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say "documenting". I also wouldn't say that he is definitely not sexist -- I have no idea. But wouldn't you say that an author can depict evil and evil characters without being evil himself or the work considered as contributing to greater evil in the world. Then it seems natural to assume that some authors may want to explore a world where everyone is evil or has an evil side at least and that does not make the author evil either.

The author may even want to go as far as depicting numerous kinds of evil -- which may include sexism, homophobia etc. what makes it different now?

After reading all the books I'm not convinced that he "depicts the world in a sexist way" (maybe occasionally? I read the first ones a long time ago), but he does portray a sexist world.

PS I forgot Brienne and Sam from my side note -- they seem totally non-evil as far as I remember.

I definitely agree that artists are free to explore dark themes. But that doesn't mean that any given depiction of a dark theme is actually any good. And of course others can criticize their exploration of that theme, as you acknowledge. So from my point of view, the question should not be "can G.R.R. Martin present a sexist world," it should be "is G.R.R. Martin's exploration of sexism actually any good?"

And in my view, the answer to that question is no. He really doesn't seem to have anything interesting to say about sexism or sexual violence at all, which makes me wonder why he included those themes in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something with which I've wrestled myself. Talking with my colleagues around the department, we've agreed that Martin does a great job building a world fueled on pessimism, which is fundamental to a "medieval" mindset. That said, he does abuse rape as a plot device, no doubt because it's so effective for setting characterization and tone. He certainly could find other ways, but feasts and sexual violence seem to be two things of which Martin can't get enough. It feels lazy, especially in light of the arduous world-building he's accomplished everywhere else. I don't know how I feel about that.

 

Of course, it's always the TV show that sparks these conversations, rather than the books. I think part of that is simply the lack of authorial distance in TV as opposed to literature. You just don't stop and think "why did the scriptwriter do that" as readily as you do "why did the author do that." The other half is more just HBO being HBO. They've always ferreted out the tawdry and scandalous in any period drama (Rome? Anyone remember all the ugly, gratuitous sex in that otherwise excellent show?), but when the fictional world is already as dark as Martin made it, a certain amount of perversity creeps in. Even though many qualitative improvements in the depiction of female characters are native to the TV show (Shae, Margaery Tyrell, and Daenerys come to mind, plus we don't have to hear the Kingslayer call Brienne of Tarth "ugly" and "mannish" ten thousand times in his head), the compression and explicitness inherent in adapting a script make these things come faster and thicker, especially if violence, sexual or otherwise, is what the scriptwriters want to (or are instructed to) preserve. I don't know how I feel about that, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like there would have to be at least some level of sexism represented when depicting a more primitive or less civilized society for it to be accurate to how things would be in the real world. I mean, it's fucked up but look at how rampant sexism and sexual abuse is in the less civilized corners of the world (not to mention that despite the progress that has been made it is still fairly prevalent even in civilized countries, just disguised better). I think it is irresponsible to use it just for shock value but I think it is okay to be present in some way to accurately depict how it would be in the real world under similar circumstances. I think it is pretty fucking tough for it to be used in a meaningful way though because of how horribly sexualized women have become in today's media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree, but why does Joffrey's sadism have to be sexual as well as violent, for instance? That's a question I think is worth asking. I suspect the answer is that it's sick to want to hurt people, but it's sick to want to hurt women, which is a sexism that exists apart from the world of a book containing monsters like Gregor Clegane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of justification for that are you after? We don't know how the story ends yet, but if, at the end of it, you can look back and say that his sadism could have been non-sexual without significantly altering the plot, is that a good reason why it should have been non-sexual? I don't really think it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of justification for that are you after? We don't know how the story ends yet, but if, at the end of it, you can look back and say that his sadism could have been non-sexual without significantly altering the plot, is that a good reason why it should have been non-sexual? I don't really think it is. 

 

Then we're not going to see eye to eye on this, I'm afraid. If the presence or absence of sexual violence against women and children by a given character has no bearing on the plot, its inclusion is senseless at best and sexist at worst. I mean, I love Martin's characters as much as the next, but are there any "bad" guys who aren't rapists and perverts? The Hound, I guess?

 

Spoilers for Storm of Swords:

Meanwhile, Joffrey's been dead for two books. I doubt there's any justification for his character beyond just being a bad person and a bad king. I'll gladly eat those words if I'm wrong, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joffrey's sadism is sexual as well as violent because he's a horrible fucking person.

 

Duh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that was a surprise for me, too. Fortunately, I don't really care about spoilers, but yeahhh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I'll add something above it. I thought putting spoilers behind spoilers would be enough.

 

Joffrey's sadism is sexual as well as violent because he's a horrible fucking person.

 

Duh?

 

If he was violent but not sexual, would he be less of a horrible fucking person? What I'm saying is that it's problematic how every character who needs to be flagged as "beyond redemption" commits acts of sexual violence in Martin's books. At some points, it feels like having Anakin Skywalker murder children out of nowhere at the end of Revenge of the Sith so that the audience can know he's a really bad guy now. It doesn't necessarily compromise Martin's books, but the TV series does highlight how often it's used, by virtue of the narrative compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was reasonable to assume you were going to be talking about the TV show, so yeah.

 

I always feel like someone's going to jump out from behind a tree and go "Gotcha! You're secretly sexist" in these discussions, but: I don't see that it's problematic for terrible characters to do terrible things. It can be clumsy or inconsistent with the characters (like you might be saying Anakin's youngling murder was), but here it's not. It would also be problematic if it came off as meaningless, or deliberately edgy, like "oh dear, it's been two episodes without a rape, throw one in here" but it hasn't been so far. Is it problematic, or disrespectful, to depict sexual violence in a context where the entire rest of the production doesn't hinge on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think that's what we're talking about here. At what point do books and TV shows filled with terrible characters doing terrible things become terrible themselves? I don't mean to say that A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones are terrible, of course. I've read the past three books the week they came out and I've never missed an episode of the show. Still, it's worth examining the amount and intent of sexual violence (and violence as a whole, really) in such a popular franchise, because why not? It's interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from my point of view, the question should not be "can G.R.R. Martin present a sexist world," it should be "is G.R.R. Martin's exploration of sexism actually any good?"

And in my view, the answer to that question is no. He really doesn't seem to have anything interesting to say about sexism or sexual violence at all, which makes me wonder why he included those themes in the first place.

That seems like a good way of judging it, and I might even agree. I have been waiting throughout the books for some kind of overarching point he has to make but haven't seen one yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think that's what we're talking about here. At what point do books and TV shows filled with terrible characters doing terrible things become terrible themselves? 

Never. At no point does it become acceptable to accuse an artist of being the things he describes his characters as, unless the narrative in question is constructed in a way that explicitly condones that sort of behaviour.

For some reason this issue is perfectly clear to us with other forms of terrible behaviour - Nabokov is not a pedophile, the guy who made Saw is not a torturer - but when it comes to sexism, I constantly see this very obvious distinction become hemmed and hawed about. It's a bit ridiculous, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never. At no point does it become acceptable to accuse an artist of being the things he describes his characters as, unless the narrative in question is constructed in a way that explicitly condones that sort of behaviour.

 

Is the answer 'Never' or when 'the narrative in question is constructed in a way that explicitly condones that sort of behaviour" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the answer 'Never' or when 'the narrative in question is constructed in a way that explicitly condones that sort of behaviour" ?

The answer is that the things characters do, regardless of how terrible, never make the piece itself (or the author) terrible. Ever.

Having a narrative that condones terrible things is a different issue altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is that the things characters do, regardless of how terrible, never make the piece itself (or the author) terrible. Ever.

Having a narrative that condones terrible things is a different issue altogether.

 

I would agree that just because an author writes a story about something like pedophilia, that does not make the author himself a pedophile. But I disagree with the idea that character actions don't have an effect on the quality of a piece. If the author can't justify why a character is doing something horrible then I have every right to ask why it was necessary to include this horrible act in the first place.

 

Going beyond Martin and Game of Thrones: I take issue with the way a lot of authors use sexual violence in their stories. Most of the time, I get the impression that an author includes this kind of action because they want to shock the reader; it's used as a lazy way to insert drama into the story, and very rarely do I think it's ever justified or done well. If an author feels the need to include something like this in their story (or murder or pedophilia or drug use or any of number of horrible things) then they need to provide a reason beyond 'I want to temporarily shock my readers.' Nabokov had a very intentional reason for making Humbert Humbert a pedophile, all I'm asking is that other authors be held to that same standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×