Violence against women in the series. Thoughts (Show spoilers) MOD NOTE post #1

snausages · 30-04-2014 03:56PM

There are definitely other scenes in the series I'd consider problematic, although birthing shadow-babies and incest-twins nearly killing Bran isn't among them. The very first episode had Kahl Drogo appearing to rape Daneryeas, which apparently doesn't even happen in the book, so I'm not sure if it was a directional snafu like Cersei and Jaime last week or that they wanted it to be rape.

snausages · 30-04-2014 04:00PM

Sleepy wrote: »

What exactly is it that people are offended by? That women in the series are raped is no more implying that sexual violence is acceptable than the fact it has dragons is implying that they're real. That our society seems to consider the maiming and murder of characters less appalling than rape says there's something wrong about us imo. Are we eager to convince people who've been raped that they've suffered a fate worse than death for some reason?

Most (not all) of the extreme scenes are sufficiently detached from our own reality for them to work on the level of fantasy, so I don't think that people being more offended by the extreme rape scenes than by the mutilations and crucifixions is evidence of our moral hypocrisy. I'd argue that Theon's castration was maybe overdone. Maybe.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the creator's of GoT are rape apologists. That'd be absurd.

I don't think it's fair to compare the series to torture porn to make the point that the rape scenes aren't 'that' graphic. Torture porn is probably one of the most base forms of 'art' out there.

Sleepy · 30-04-2014 04:03PM

I thought that scene was accurate enough tbh. It was an arranged marriage in a world where Danaerys became Drogo's property the second she married him and she submitted to his sexual desires even though they were possibly the last thing she wanted. Much as Sansa would have submitted to Tyrion had he insisted on consummating their marriage and those who society forced into arranged marriages in our own past would have done so.

The idea of marrying for love is relatively new to humanity and marital rape has only been criminalised in our own lifetime.

snausages · 30-04-2014 04:05PM

Yeah, but book

from hearing people who've read the books talk about it it seems like Dany and Drogo's relationship was founded on a basis of somewhat uneasy consent at first, then they fell properly in love. In the series we only seemed to get the second part of that. I'd have much rathered it be like the book, especially as Dany is older in the series while she's only 12 in the book

Standman · 30-04-2014 04:06PM

HBO promo for this series:

game-of-thrones-all-men-must-die-poster-11x17_500.jpg?k=d31f85ec&pid=540461&s=catl&sn=hbo

They must have spelled 'women' wrong! :pac:

pickarooney · 30-04-2014 04:12PM

Standman wrote: »

I was more annoyed by the over the top acting and dialogue from your man drinking out of the skull in that scene; "I'm a scary, scary bad man. Look at my big mean face.".

I get they don't have enough time to flesh out each character in such a vastly populated series, but some characters can come across as a bit too one dimensional a lot of the time.

Exactly. These are the kind of characters that nobody could give a **** about as they're obviously comic-book bad with no chance of redemption. The grey-area characters like the Hound, Arya and Jaime are far more interesting that this buffoon or the insipid goody two-shoes like Sansa and Ned. Joffrey was an exception because he regularly got a good beat down from his uncle or grandfather.

Sleepy · 30-04-2014 04:21PM

snausages wrote: »

Most (not all) of the extreme scenes are sufficiently detached from our own reality for them to work on the level of fantasy, so I don't think that people being more offended by the extreme rape scenes than by the mutilations and crucifixions is evidence of our moral hypocrisy. I'd argue that Theon's castration was maybe overdone. Maybe.

Why was it overdone? The sausage related humour the following week was a little cringe-worthy but it still made my wife giggle. I'd disagree that the rape scenes are "extreme" too btw. Were they filmed on the same level of extremity as many of the non-sexual violence, I can't see them being aired.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily moral hypocrisy, just that perhaps we're overly sensitive to scenes of scenes of violence against women. Much in the same way that were a male character to backhand Cersei in the same way that Tyrion back-handed Joffrey I couldn't see it being as celebrated.

Maybe it stems from historic partriarchal notions of women being fragile things that need a man's protection, maybe it's caused by some sections of feminism's urgency to paint women as victims at every opportunity but it really does seem to me that people are over-reacting to these scenes because it's women who are being treated horribly in them.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the creator's of GoT are rape apologists. That'd be absurd.

While not going that far, I think many are trying to argue that the creators shouldn't show rape on screen. The "why?" of their argument seems to have escaped most of them however.

Because it might traumatise someone who's been raped? The same argument has never been used against the RSA's car crash ads, nor have I seen it suggested that stabbings etc. shouldn't be shown for fear of upsetting the victims of knife crimes.

Because it's "not nice"? If we accept that argument we may as well cancel this, and many other shows.

I don't think it's fair to compare the series to torture porn to make the point that the rape scenes aren't 'that' graphic. Torture porn is probably one of the most base forms of 'art' out there.

It's not my cup of tea to be honest but I don't feel the need to put inverted commas around the word art when describing it... or at least no more than I would around soap operas, rom-coms, horror movies or other forms of fiction that wouldn't be to my taste either.

Naydy · 30-04-2014 04:39PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Much in the same way that were a male character to backhand Cersei in the same way that Tyrion back-handed Joffrey I couldn't see it being as celebrated.

Umm, Robert did this. And none of us "over-sensitive" types were bothered by that. I thought the scene of Robert hitting Cersei was well done and in character and actually added to the plot. I certainly wasn't thinking "poor fragile woman".

snausages · 30-04-2014 04:45PM

Sleepy wrote: »

While not going that far, I think many are trying to argue that the creators shouldn't show rape on screen. The "why?" of their argument seems to have escaped most of them however.

I don't think anyone has made that argument, not me anyway. I think the creators should be allowed to show and communicate rape on screen, but within certain limits. It's not as if this would hamper the creative vision of the show or harm the story it's trying to tell. The viewer knows that rape in Westeros is a real threat faced not just by women but also men (remember Theon in the forest?), so naturally there comes a point where it simply isn't necessary to keep reminding the audience watching.

The issue I have lies with narrative justification. As you ask 'why' do people hate the rape scenes, I ask 'why' are there so many and what is the purpose of them? TV doesn't need to be realistic, especially when it's a fantasy series. Even a series as great as The Wire and True Detective steps outside the limits of realism from time to time simply because it works better that way. The scene with that rapey asshole drinking out of the previous Night's Watch Commander's skull is corney but an effective communicant of why he's such an arse.

Suspension of disbelief is why comically absurd scenes such as that don't really bother the average TV viewer. But vicious rape scenes do. I'm not a rape victim so the scene didn't trigger any specific traumas for me like it might do for others, but I still find it disgusting. It's not why I watch Game of Thrones. I know this series has garnered a reputation over the past 4 years but even so I did not expect it to have scenes like this. I don't see why the fault should lie with me, the TV viewer, for finding this scene so offensive. I totally disagree as well that this scene is on par with stuff that has been shown before.

As for the RSA ads, well we have rape-awareness ads that are pretty vivid in their own way but with the intent of raising awareness, something which I don't think is at the forefront of the script-writer's mind when he/she wrote the Castor's Keep scene.

Potatoeman · 30-04-2014 04:48PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I thought that scene was accurate enough tbh. It was an arranged marriage in a world where Danaerys became Drogo's property the second she married him and she submitted to his sexual desires even though they were possibly the last thing she wanted. Much as Sansa would have submitted to Tyrion had he insisted on consummating their marriage and those who society forced into arranged marriages in our own past would have done so.

The idea of marrying for love is relatively new to humanity and marital rape has only been criminalised in our own lifetime.

The marriage would not be legitimate if it was not consumated either. Its also the reason the bedding tradition seems to exist in Westeros.

Potatoeman · 30-04-2014 04:57PM

snausages wrote: »

I don't think anyone has made that argument, not me anyway. I think the creators should be allowed to show and communicate rape on screen, but within certain limits. It's not as if this would hamper the creative vision of the show or harm the story it's trying to tell. The viewer knows that rape in Westeros is a real threat faced not just by women but also men (remember Theon in the forest?), so naturally there comes a point where it simply isn't necessary to keep reminding the audience watching.

The issue I have lies with narrative justification. As you ask 'why' do people hate the rape scenes, I ask 'why' are there so many and what is the purpose of them? TV doesn't need to be realistic, especially when it's a fantasy series. Even a series as great as The Wire and True Detective steps outside the limits of realism from time to time simply because it works better that way. The scene with that rapey asshole drinking out of the previous Night's Watch Commander's skull is corney but an effective communicant of why he's such an arse.

Suspension of disbelief is why comically absurd scenes such as that don't really bother the average TV viewer. But vicious rape scenes do. I'm not a rape victim so the scene didn't trigger any specific traumas for me like it might do for others, but I still find it disgusting. It's not why I watch Game of Thrones. I know this series has garnered a reputation over the past 4 years but even so I did not expect it to have scenes like this. I don't see why the fault should lie with me, the TV viewer, for finding this scene so offensive. I totally disagree as well that this scene is on par with stuff that has been shown before.

As for the RSA ads, well we have rape-awareness ads that are pretty vivid in their own way but with the intent of raising awareness, something which I don't think is at the forefront of the script-writer's mind when he/she wrote the Castor's Keep scene.

Wouldnt you then need narrative justification for the extreme violence too. You could argue we didnt need to see Stanis cut the top of that guys head off.

snausages · 30-04-2014 04:59PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Wouldnt you then need narrative justification for the extreme violence too. You could argue we didnt need to see Stanis cut the top of that guys head off.

I don't know what scene you're talking about tbh. But yeah, if there's violence in a scene that's pointless then it's a problem. I find it hard to think of any specific examples of that though.

Potatoeman · 30-04-2014 05:03PM

snausages wrote: »

I don't know what scene you're talking about tbh. But yeah, if there's violence in a scene that's pointless then it's a problem. I find it hard to think of any specific examples of that though.

Stanis cuts the top of a guys head off while attacking Kingslanding. It was very graphic and was also for shock value.

snausages · 30-04-2014 05:18PM

Doesn't sound like too much to me. But too many unnecessarily violent scenes can be just as bad for the soul as rape scenes I think.

Sleepy · 30-04-2014 05:27PM

snausages wrote: »

But yeah, if there's violence in a scene that's pointless then it's a problem.

And here we get to the very core of the question: why is it a problem?

snausages · 30-04-2014 05:37PM

Sleepy wrote: »

And here we get to the very core of the question: why is it a problem?

Any scene that doesn't make any meaningful contribution to the episode, aesthetically or thematically, is a waste in my opinion.

Not that every episode of GoT should have to be a carefully structured piece of taut action and intrigue, although that is why I started watching the show to being with. But I don't think either that it should be a smorgasbord of rape and gore week in week out.

Ok, I sware on me mum I'm not posting in here anymore. I've made my point, I'm out.

Nerdlingr · 30-04-2014 05:39PM

If the rape scene was airbrushed from the background would we think the mutineers less vile than we already do?

Wolf Club · 30-04-2014 06:07PM

I think the main difference between the violence towards men and women in the show is that the violence towards women is more in line with what we deal with in modern Western society. Rape is a terrible scourge on our own society as well as in Westeros so watching it is much more uncomfortable than watching someone being flayed or hacked to pieces, which seems like something from a horror film.

Amirani · 30-04-2014 06:14PM

Is rape being shown on screen really much worse than it being explicitly referred to? If the women had been a separate room, and men had been sent in and instructed to "**** them until they're dead", would that really have been much different? I think some people probably have an over-sensitivity to stuff that's depicted on screen. I've read books that have troubled and repulsed me more than anything that could ever been shown on screen. Lolita for example in terms of its content and A Clockwork Orange in terms of its gory details are far more graphic in my mind and cause a much more profound emotional reaction.

I mentioned in the show thread how the dog-eating-woman scene was probably to most disturbing to me so far this season. One or two posters brushed it off, saying because it was off-screen it's not as bad. None of the stuff being shown on screen is particularly graphic, I don't get why it being visual causes much more uproar? For me there's no difference.

Regardless of what any of us think, I don't think HBO's going to be changing what it's doing any time soon.

Amirani · 30-04-2014 06:16PM

Wolf Club wrote: »

I think the main difference between the violence towards men and women in the show is that the violence towards women is more in line with what we deal with in modern Western society. Rape is a terrible scourge on our own society as well as in Westeros so watching it is much more uncomfortable than watching someone being flayed or hacked to pieces, which seems like something from a horror film.

And actually happens far more than you seem to realise. There's hundreds of brutal and barbaric murders every single day around the world.

Here's some recent ones in Britain: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/347066/Horror-Killings-Britain-s-most-gruesome-and-brutal-murders-revealed

DM addict · 30-04-2014 06:31PM

This is a brutal, complex world, with lots of violence against both men and women, including rape. This is an accurate depiction of the story, as far as I see it.

I explained earlier my thoughts as to why they'd include a scene like that, narratively. Can every element of violence in the series be justified in narrative terms? I'm not sure - I have other things to do today, so don't intend to make a critical evaluation of so much TV. But, I think it largely can.

Also the scene with the girl being eaten by dogs was much more disturbing to me than the rapists at Craster's. And to be honest, Craster, with his harem of wives/daughters, freaked me out more than the current lot. Perhaps it's the mass incest and baby sacrificing that I'm not a fan of.

snausages · 30-04-2014 06:50PM

I think Lolita is a much more complex story than GoT, with plenty reason to be shocking. It's a psychological case study of a paedophile. It's a good deal more allusive and discrete about rape than GoT is, but then that's one thing that's easier to achieve with text. I don't think I'm overly sensitive. I was offended by Lolita but I knew what I was getting with that novel and I don't begrudge Nabokov for what he wrote. I think it's a terrific book, in fairness.

Potatoeman · 30-04-2014 07:35PM

snausages wrote: »

I think Lolita is a much more complex story than GoT, with plenty reason to be shocking. It's a psychological case study of a paedophile. It's a good deal more allusive and discrete about rape than GoT is, but then that's one thing that's easier to achieve with text. I don't think I'm overly sensitive. I was offended by Lolita but I knew what I was getting with that novel and I don't begrudge Nabokov for what he wrote. I think it's a terrific book, in fairness.

They are very different stories, GOT has far more characters so they cant be as fleshed out.

Naux · 30-04-2014 07:35PM

snausages wrote: »

I think Lolita is a much more complex story than GoT, with plenty reason to be shocking. It's a psychological case study of a paedophile. It's a good deal more allusive and discrete about rape than GoT is, but then that's one thing that's easier to achieve with text. I don't think I'm overly sensitive. I was offended by Lolita but I knew what I was getting with that novel and I don't begrudge Nabokov for what he wrote. I think it's a terrific book, in fairness.

You mean to say that you didn't know what you were getting with GOT ????

snausages · 30-04-2014 07:55PM

Naux wrote: »

You mean to say that you didn't know what you were getting with GOT ????

Not wall to wall rape, no.

ceadaoin. · 30-04-2014 08:15PM

snausages wrote: »

Not wall to wall rape, no.

It's wall to wall rape now? I wouldn't say that

snausages · 30-04-2014 08:18PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's wall to wall rape now? I wouldn't say that

No, I guess it isn't really. Not literally anyway. But it's a figurative expression. Point being there's a lot of it.

DM addict · 30-04-2014 08:25PM

snausages wrote: »

No, I guess it isn't really. Not literally anyway. But it's a figurative expression. Point being there's a lot of it.

There is. But there's also a lot of incest.

If it's too much- which I would understand- then all I can say is don't watch. I don't feel it's gratuitous, or torture-porny, and it actually serves the plot.

Also, the violence against Hodor is possibly even more upsetting :-(

Sleepy · 30-04-2014 08:57PM

So far the only rape in GOT which didn't feature in the books was the scene between Jaime and Cersei and that seems to have just been a directorial **** up.

IIRC, to-date in the series so far, if we include the cases of forceful sex between Danaerys and Drogo, and Jamie and Cersei as rape, add the Dothraki rape of Mirri Maz Duur and the other Lhazareen women of her village, the attempted rape of Sansa Stark in Flea Botttom and the Nights Watch Mutineers rape of Crasters Daughters we've had less than 30 rapes in the series to-date, with maybe 4 of them directly occurring on screen.

If we take the count on the video below to be accurate, we've had 5,179 deaths in the first 3 seasons and maybe another couple of 100 in the first few episodes of Season 4. So, no, I wouldn't say the series is "wall to wall" rape...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYvhnjqXc1U

Naux · 30-04-2014 09:16PM

snausages wrote: »

Not wall to wall rape, no.

A tad dramatic I think.................

If it was just wall to wall rape then I'm sure the vast majority of people would not watch it.

Violence against women in the series. Thoughts (Show spoilers) MOD NOTE post #1

Comments