Game of Thrones, HBO, antifeminism, and its dragon-tail

On Wednesday, The Guardian published this article about how "Game of Thrones" (or, rather, HBO) has betrayed the women who made it great; it contains spoilers up to, and including, the episode that was released on Monday.

The writer, Abigail Chandler, advocates that the—male-only written and directed season eight of "Game of Thrones"—series should have been written in, well, a feministic way.

To me, it's obvious that HBO is changing its antifeminist ways after #metoo, which is sad but also good; they should have realised that showing women as a tits-and-ass parade isn't how women behave in real life.

From the article:

So having two female villains is not at all anti-feminist – in fact, it’s refreshing – but it gets wearisome when, in The Last of the Starks, Tyrion and Varys all but decide that Jon Snow is the rightful king to oppose these mad queens, chiefly because he’s a man. Sure, he hasn’t resorted to solving his problems with explosions, which is certainly a tick in the plus column, but he’s also a notoriously terrible politician, and last time he was put in charge of something he got murdered in a mutiny. None of his major battles were won by him – Sansa bailed him out in the Battle of the Bastards, and Arya saved the day in the Battle for Winterfell. Jon’s only qualifications for the throne are that he’s a Targaryen, and a bloke.

To hear Tyrion and Varys – characters who have always been portrayed as egalitarian – say that Jon’s gender would make him a better leader than Daenerys is just depressing. And to see Daenerys being rejected as a potential queen for being too “strong” for a husband to control, not to mention being portrayed as emotionally unstable when a man in her position would be depicted simply as a bit of a dick, is a betrayal of the character.

Chandler, A. (2019, May 8). Game Of Thrones Has Betrayed The Women Who Made It Great. The Guardian. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/may/08/game-of-thrones-has-betrayed-the-women-who-made-it-great

I agree. The manner in which the (male) writers have upended the female characters is awful. There are good things about the latest episode, as the article mentions at the end, but that's it.

I wrote about this on Facebook, and was struck with how one of my former colleagues commented on it. This is what he posted:

The irony is, naturally, that this picture is passive aggressive and not a "whisper", which, I assume, is merely some sort of image watermark. Discussion-posthumously, I must say the image is symptomatic for the conversation.

I replied as follows (which is translated by myself from Swedish):

That's not true, and foremost, it's to belittle the rights of non-males, the struggle for equality for all, and the point of what I wrote about. Antifeminism hurts nearly everybody (including men).

Your image could just as well be pasted into every post that exists, with the same vacuous results.

He replied, and I'm trying to stay true to language and style here:

The whole series culminates in two female strong characters who fight for the throne, a woman was the one who did what no-one else could and killed the seemingly immortal night king. It is a tvseries [sic] that tries to tell a story, you make it sound like they are obligated to the world to tell it in a precisely justly distributed way [sic], otherwise it is not good enough. Guess we choose entertainment for different reasons, I think it's better to critique politicians for example in the real world instead of demanding a private company should take responsibility for everybody's feelings. If you don't like the contents you don't have to watch, right?

In turn, I replied:

I wrote that some improvements have been made by HBO prior. Au contraire, the improvements are barely noticable considering the fact that men and non-males are equals, morally stated, which the series does not show.

Is that because equality does not exist in a fantasy world? No. It happens because non-males have often been treated as of lower standing by the ones who make the series. As you note, Cersei and Danerys [sic] are strong, but just take a look at how they are treated in comparison with the men in the series. From the article that I linked to:

"So having two female villains is not at all anti-feminist – in fact, it’s refreshing – but it gets wearisome when, in The Last of the Starks, Tyrion and Varys all but decide that Jon Snow is the rightful king to oppose these mad queens, chiefly because he’s a man. Sure, he hasn’t resorted to solving his problems with explosions, which is certainly a tick in the plus column, but he’s also a notoriously terrible politician, and last time he was put in charge of something he got murdered in a mutiny. None of his major battles were won by him – Sansa bailed him out in the Battle of the Bastards, and Arya saved the day in the Battle for Winterfell. Jon’s only qualifications for the throne are that he’s a Targaryen, and a bloke."

To claim that the most costly TV series in the world, ever, cannot affect those who watch it, in regards to how non-males are being treated, is to ignore how culture affects humans. Culture shapes our emotive lives from birth; feelings about things aren't there from the start. Antifeminism kills more non-males than wars do.

Whether a company is privately owned or not has nothing to do with morals; analyse how companies such as Monsanto/Bayer wipe out nations by behaving as they do, or how Facebook can afford to not care about GDPR while they sell ads to hate groups, and I think you will understand why it's important to criticise companies; it's also an intellectual obligation to stand up against idiocy that leads to harsher lives for persons who don't refer to themselves as males in any capacity. It's not about a company having to "take responsibility for everybody's emotions"; it's about the fact that a company shouldn't treat non-males as lower status people. Imagine if a mechanic would treat you the same way if you came in with a car with a broken wheel, and a person on the street said, "Sorry, you're making it sound like a company person should take responsibility for all physical things that can occur to a car."

To look away to cover suffering does not work. That also goes for not feeling [for others], which I think is the base problem at HBO.

Sadly, this only generated one comment back, after which the commenter went silent:

Before I even answer the rest of the text I just have to pick my chin up from the floor, "Antifeminism kills more non-males than wars do".

Please, give me some source to this and explain more exactly [sic] what you mean

I get why he points out my sentence. Absolutely, the word "kills" doesn't make anything right, but for me, that's a bit like FOX News trying to cherry-pick Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' use of the word "slay":

Thank you Fox News for making all the campaign graphics I never knew I needed pic.twitter.com/TtaWR0PsOZ

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 16, 2018

My reply to his text:

I used "killed" untidily and thought of Woody Guthrie's guitar slogan: "this machine kills fascists." The problem is that non-males are epidemically, by use of arms, and in conflict, by males; a couple of those words are often used to define the word "war". So yeah, you're right, women are subjected to war.

While I wait for an answer, additionally: what is "the real world"? It's a trifle in comparison with the rest that I wrote, but I wonder what you meant, as I don't understand.

No answer. So far. He could be writing a novel, for all I know, but so far, all that he's accomplished is diatribe and a somewhat "you said something shoddy while I was venting at you for standing up for something good, so there!" word-belch.

I truly want to understand the guy. I mean, he makes assumptions about these things about me:

• I'm angry because I've looked hard enough at something
  That's what his passive-aggressively used image states, which is insane; getting angry for being analytical would be weird and not very productive.
  
• I choose entertainment for different reasons than he does
  This may be true, but how can he know? He's never asked.
  
  Here's what interests me most, where he implies the following:
  
• I don't think it's better to criticise politicians, for example, in the real world, instead of asking a private[ly owned] company to take responsibility
  
  I've got questions about this one.
  
  I'm not going to rehash my Facebook reply, even though I'd still love to see a response to what I wrote.
  
  Do I think it's better to criticise companies rather than companies? No. That's not how my morals work. I choose to critique and criticise both politicians and privately owned companies.
  
  To me, this is a very strange thing to say, especially from a person who loves hip-hop, a musical genre that basically came as a response to injustice.

I wonder why he used the term "good enough". If something's good enough, should we not care? Also, what is good enough, exactly?

Another question: why did he not pick up on how non-males may experience the show, or HBO as a company, for that matter?

In Swedish, the terrific word "tolkningsföreträde" is used far too seldom. It's used to say who has the main right of interpretation. An example of use is if Palestinians would discuss whether it's right to allow the Eurovision music fest in Israel, and someone who lives in Sweden would butt in and say "come on, you're trying to deprive our kids a fun time in front of the tv." In that case, Palestinians have the tolkningsföreträde.

In the discussion above, my former colleague seems to be blind to only to the global struggle for equality, but I truly wonder if he would respond in the same way if I used a different strategy, for example, racism. From the aforementioned article:

Worst of all, though, was the treatment of Missandei. As Game of Thrones’ only regular female character of colour, the show had a responsibility to not mess her arc up. And yet we found ourselves watching a former slave – who only wanted to return to the home country she was stolen from, and who had dedicated the last few years of her life to helping Daenerys wipe out slavery – get captured and beheaded while handcuffed, all so that her death could give Daenerys the final justification she needed to burn this mother down. It’s a move so shockingly tone deaf as to make you wonder how anyone in the writer’s room ever thought it was a good idea.

I didn't mention that in my replies, but perhaps he's coming to that point later. She's a woman, though, so perhaps it's all good. Also, which I've heard from vulgar persons, "it's all a fantasy universe! It's not 'Earth'!"

Mmm. I know why you say that. It's because you have fantasy intelligence. That explains what you just said.

That entire "culture doesn't affect people" smegma is just appalling. Just check up how "The Birth of a Nation" revived the Ku Klux Klan.

Or how antifeminism affects men.

A lot of scholars, including Swedish Katarina Wennstam, have read many a court case transcription, and guffawed at how men are perceived, and don't bat an eye at it.

I'm mainly thinking of how men are portrayed as mindless idiots, slaves under testosterone, incapable of stopping themselves from raping someone if they can't have sex willingly between individuals.

None have commented on my post other than that person, another man who jokes about Targaryan incest, and a third man, who inserts popcorn emojis; I asked him what he meant, he replied "it's an exciting discussion", I asked why, and no response.

Naturally. Sadly. Men and detailing their emotions...now there's a void.

I saw Neko Case post this yesterday:

I can't agree more with her.

Also: