Sem título

[sansa-stark-is-me]

Team black rhaenyra stans clinging to blood purity as a cope of win is the funniest shiz when yk their fave kot7k targaryens have dornish Martell, dayne, andal arryn, dondarrion, penrose?, first men Blackwood blood from their not so valyrian mothers

Oh #they must be secretly fuming and hating those martell, dondarion, dayne, arryn, blackwood genes in their trew kweens bloodline ...poor neonazis... on top of that the only way of their faves house continuing is through halfbreed jon snow🫣

Grrm writes irony really well i gotta say!

Example of their racial purity:

“But Alicent isn’t a Targaryen, she doesn’t have the right!” has always been a weird argument to me because… the “right” she’s defending is not her own personal dragonlord claim. She’s fighting for her children’s inheritance. Her children are literally Viserys’s legitimate Targaryen children.

And by that logic, where does this stop? Alyssa Velaryon wasn’t a Targaryen either. She was half-Andal Velaryon fighting for the interests and inheritance of her children, who were only half-Targaryen themselves. Are we saying queens, wives, and royal mothers have no political standing to advocate for their children unless they possess enough Targaryen DNA points?

The blood-purity obsession. Also… this is Westeros. Noble mothers constantly fight for their children’s rights, claims, marriages, lands, positions, and survival. That is not uniquely scandalous Alicent invention. Catelyn, Cersei, Alyssa Velaryon, literally half the political mothers in this universe work through kinship advocacy.

It feels odd when her entire political position is inseparable from being the queen consort and mother of the king’s acknowledged children. You can disagree with her claim or support Rhaenyra’s inheritance without sliding into arguments that basically sound like Nazi/eugenics logic and sliding into “non-Targ women must sit down and accept whatever happens because blood...”

Mind you, a lot them genuinely treat the AKOTSK Targaryens as if they’re directly descended from Rhaenyra in a clean, immediate line, rather than understanding there’s a full century of intervening history, branches & intermarriage. I saw someone saying they like Aerion more than Aemond because he’s “Rhaenyra’s blood”… as if Aemond isn’t also Rhaenyra’s blood through the same line.

[historiclover]

People really fall easily into eugenics speech. To the point it makes me really interesting to imagine what would happen if George really had made the Valyrian POC and how the fandom would react to House Targaryen.

But I think, about making the Targaryen women more "worthy", specially post F&B, we should put some blame on George because of Alyssa Velaryon (in truth because of the way he doesn't care about any other women who aren't Targaryen). But the case of Alyssa Velaryon is the most problematic. @goodqueenaly has written a lot about this subject and I recomend it. Alyssa went from the political powerhouse post Conquest women to a woman who let her second husband rule over her, scheme against her son, and then died in Storm's End in childbed.

There was no reason for this. None. Alyssa could have been a capable regent who stood aside for her son (knowing he needed to be strong and independent after Aenys). She could stay at court as a political figure, she could have gone to a Motherhouse. Found them even (very common for Widows. Maybe even found schools for girls) but instead she is another woman who dies because her husband wanted a son.

Why? What is this narrative proposes? To have Rhaena's speech? A speech that Jaehaerys and Alysanne will forget as Jaehaerys forces children onto his wife late in her childbirth years for no reason whatsoever?

Why did Elinor Costayne so easily accept the doctrine of exceptionalism? A woman who was forced to marry Maegor? Worse, who did because Maegor threatened the life of her sons? And then saw the fates of his other wives? She could have retired to a Motherhouse and done some good work and her life be that. But no, George bring her back to the text to say she was one of the seven people spreeding his eugenics rethoric. Why? Because Jaehaerys and Alysanne are that special?!

(Also Jeyne Arryn is the least active Regent during Aegon III reign..why is that George? )

[sansa-stark-is-me]

I’ve noticed that the most hated ASOIAF female character are the ones breaking from the “soft, self-sacrificing fantasy mother” trope.

Your analysis is on point always. But I feel the tragedy here is that these women ARE self sacrificing and soft in their own ways. Catelyn Stark was a feminine, traditional woman and yet, non conforming too. Alicent Hightower is another example of being a feminine woman bound by the constraints of society and yet, politically active. Both were fierce and yet “soft”. And when their kids were threatened, they did not hesitate to act or beg for mercy. Alicent swallowed her dignity and begged Rhaenyra to spare Daeron and Aemond in books, and Catelyn, against her better judgement, freed their biggest enemy Jaime to get her girls back. Cersei and Rhaena the Black Bride were perhaps not THAT traditionally feminine or conventional, in the sense that Cersei seemed to have gender identity issues wherein she believed SHE should have been her father’s heir, heir to Casterly Rock over her brother. Rhaena too, being older had to assume a less traditionally feminine role in her marriage with her brother. She is hated for her motherhood more so because she is almost confirmed lesbian and that brings in homophobia apart from misogyny. But both women were in touch with their soft feminine side and used it often, and Rhaena especially was quite self sacrificing.

These women were not perfect Mary Sues or blank slate npc. They did not just sit around passively and let things happen the way their husbands or men around them wanted. They were not pushovers. They acted. And are hated for it, one reason or another. Toxic ASoIaF stans, especially toxic male centred Targaryen stans of which there are many, love npc women especially if they are non Valyrian, bidding to do what their Targ husbands want. Its interesting how Dyanna Dayne, Jena Dondarrion, Alys Arryn from AKotSK are well liked despite being non performing characters, because they can be self inserted into. Same with Valyrian women like Aemma, Daella, Naerys, Daenora who are well liked because they are passive npc characters who can be self inserted into; they are also valyrian so they get free pass anyway, something which Catelyn, Cersei, Sansa and now Alicent do not.

Only valyrian women have the right to fight for themselves and their children OR only men like Maekar who despite being on the “antagonist” side gets free sympathy from fandom that antagonist women do not. Visenya and Maegor were also villains in Alyssa Velaryon and Rhaena’s story but the same toxic fans who champion Visenya usurping the throne for her son hate Alicent for doing the SAME freaking thing i.e. crowning her son against the wishes of the dead king! Same fans who say they do not support Alicent because she is “villain” bend over backwards for Visenya and her usurper son hello? What tf!

Racial purity obsession AND internalised misogyny are deadly combinations indeed. Unfortunately many feminists have it in spades in this fandom. And the irony is they are not self aware and intelligent enough to address it. Stupidity-Hypocrisy combo FTW.

Referring to this post.

👏🏻

When I say the most hated ASOIAF female characters are the ones who break from the ‘soft, self-sacrificing fantasy mother’ trope, I’m not simply talking about women who don’t sacrifice themselves for their children. Im talking about the women who don’t fit the idealized version of femininity fantasy audiences are more comfortable with the endlessly nurturing and defined by caregiving or suffering for others. Because yes, those women are also feminine and deeply self-sacrificing, but they also assert themselves and actively try to secure outcomes for their children or their house.

They break from the idealized passive version of that trope, not from motherhood or sacrifice itself.

A)

“And when their kids were threatened, they did not hesitate to act or beg for mercy. Alicent swallowed her dignity and begged Rhaenyra to spare Daeron and Aemond in books, and Catelyn, against her better judgement, freed their biggest enemy Jaime to get her girls back” AND “But both women were in touch with their soft feminine side and used it often, and Rhaena especially was quite self sacrificing.”

I also want to add that Cersei slept with people she would never have touched and endure rape thinking it would bring her support, protection, or political advantage and it was for the sake of her children survival. Even though she later abused those same children, she still shaped many of her choices around what she believed would protect their position and her power.

“I was alone, surrounded by schemers, false friends, and traitors who were conspiring at the death of my children. I did not know who to trust, so I … I used the only means that I had to bind the Kettleblacks to me."

"By which you mean your female parts?"

"My flesh." She pressed a hand to her face, shuddering. When she lowered it again, her eyes were wet with tears. "Yes. May the Maid forgive me. It was for my children, though, for the realm. I took no pleasure in it. The Kettleblacks … they are hard men, and cruel, and they used me roughly, but what else was I to do? Tommen needed men around him I could trust."

She did sacrifice bodily autonomy and personal dignity for them, even if those sacrifices were tangled up with her own ambition and desire for power we can still acknowledge that Cersei was abusive and power-hungry while still recognizing that she repeatedly treated her own body as a bargaining chip for political survival. She accepted humiliation and abuse she otherwise would not have tolerated because she believed it would preserve her children’s safety. That is still a form of sacrifice.

A woman who is both ambitious and maternal, both loving and politically active, breaks the simplistic “perfect mother vs evil power-hungry woman”That’s what makes them feel like actual women instead of flat archetypes.

B)

“These women were not perfect Mary Sues or blank slate npc. They did not just sit around passively and let things happen the way their husbands or men around them wanted. They were not pushovers. They acted. And are hated for it, one reason or another.”

Ironically people say they want “strong female characters,” but when women in fiction exercise agency in a complicated ways, they are hated and judged far more harshly than male characters who behave similarly. They love passive women who never seriously challenge male authority AND never pursue power for themselves.

It’s not that being gentle, passive, or non-combative is bad it’s that when that’s basically all they’re allowed to be, they stop feeling like real characters and more like narrative decoration. A well-written female character can be kind, soft, maternal, or peaceful while still being active, and capable of shaping the story.

Ceryse Hightower, who is actually a more active and resistant wife compared to Maegor’s other wives (aside from Rhaena), gets unfairly reduced and hated by targ fandom to the point where she’s basically vilified for not being submissive or obedient. She’s called a greedy rapist for the possibility that she didn’t fully submit to Maegor or Visenya, and for asserting basic rights as a queen consort, or refusing to support the violent actions being committed against her own family. She’s also a woman forced into a marriage with a psychopath child, a deeply violent and unstable person, essentially used as a political pawn by her family. Despite that, she still endures, sacrifices herself for her house and for the Faith, and is ultimately trapped in a situation she never chose. Even after being constantly humiliated, she remains tied to him through duty and circumstance, and in the end she dies far from her family, alone and removed from everything she knew. And yet a huge parts of Targaryen fandom, she’s just reduced to a greedy selfish power hungry. Hated simply because she isn’t a Targaryen woman due to racial purity and who didn’t fit the “ideal tragic wife” who didn’t die in childbirth and didn’t stay fully submissive to the white lizard crazy family.

With Alicent, it’s worse you can really see how fandom reacts differently to women depending on whether they’re active in the story or not. She’s not just existing to support someone else’s arc, she’s making her OWN decisions and acting with her OWN goals in mind. But instead of that being read as complexity, she gets treated like she’s automatically more “hateful” compared to more passive female characters (Aemma). It’s like the more agency a woman has in the story, the more people try to punish her for it, while characters who stay more passive or emotionally reactive get to be more “pure” or “victim-like.” Alicent is a perfect example of how active female characters get judged way more harshly just for actually doing things in the narrative instead of just orbiting around male leads.

“The Princess & the Queen” being included in Dangerous Women already puts Alicent in the category of women with real power, not just a background wife or passive stepmother It presents her as someone who can actually shape events and push the story forward, not just react to what others do. Even though anthology blurbs are short, calling these women “dangerous” basically signals that they matter politically. And in the actual text too, Alicent isn’t written as powerless. Her “danger” in the story doesn’t come from being passive, but from the fact that she can act, and her decisions have real consequences in a world where women having that kind of influence is already treated as “unusual.”

Unusual?

Yes bc in a lot of patriarchal societies women who have agency & act outside expected roles have been treated as “disruptive” or “threatening,”

Link🔗:

Female characters are persistently portrayed as more passive, especially by male authors. Termed ‘the gender agency gap’, this disparity underscores the enduring nature of gendered biases in literature, suggesting both a reflection of and potential impact on societal norms.”

“An old yet persistent idea about gender is that men are more agentic than women. The association of the male with the active and the female with the passive has a long arc in the history of ideas and can be found in the works of Aristotle, Rousseau, and Freud, among others.”

“Female characters are more likely to be passive in cross-gender relationships than their male counterparts. This difference, the gender agency gap, has declined since the 19th century but persists into the 21st.”

“Male authors are especially likely to attribute less agency to female characters.”

“Works of fiction play a crucial role in the production of cultural stereotypes.”

“Especially in cinema, a lack of female agency has been brought into focus through the concept of the male gaze, which illuminates how film’s perspective is often that of a male subject on a female object.”

“As for prevalence, it has been shown that male characters outnumber female ones and that descriptions of them take up more space on the page.”

“These patterns largely prevail in 21st-century fiction and are especially stark in books for children.”

Women characters are usually more written as passive (things happen to them), while men are more written as active agents (they do things & drive events). And because people are used to seeing women without agency it becomes easier for them to hate active, agentic female characters.

When someone grows up seeing passivity as “good” or “proper,” that expectation can carry over into how they judge fictional characters as well. And in real life too, when a woman finally asserts herself after being abused, she can be seen as “difficult” or “bad” just for breaking that expectation of “silence.” Agency in itself isn’t the problem, it’s that people are more conditioned to accept female suffering and passivity than female action and messiness.

The problem is that GRRM didn’t write that many active/agentic women. A huge number of aristocratic women in the lore are remembered mainly as “X’s wife,” “mother of Y,” “died in childbirth,” or “beautiful noble lady,” without the narrative granting us meaningful access to their political thought ambitions or inner lives. That becomes especially noticeable because the series is heavily inspired by medieval history, where women exercised far more visible authority than fiction acknowledges. Yet many ASOIAF noblewomen remain strangely absent from those dimensions of power unless they are central POV characters.

Real medieval history, women possessed far more political and military agency than many fictional expectations allow. Isabella of France directly participated in a major political overthrow, helping depose her husband and secure the throne for her son. Matilda of Boulogne held lands in her own right and played an active military and logistical role in sustaining King Stephen’s cause during the Anarchy. Meanwhile, Empress Matilda openly pursued her claim, led political and military campaigns, and fought for power rather than remaining a passive background.

Historically inspired fantasy SHOULD acknowledge that women in medieval societies were politically active and ambitious because real history itself was full of women exercising agency under restrictive systems. Characters like Alicent, Catelyn, Cersei etc feel more historically authentic precisely because they reflect that reality instead of conforming to the fantasy of the eternally passive medieval woman.

C)

“Toxic ASoIaF stans, especially toxic male centred Targaryen stans of which there are many, love npc women especially if they are non Valyrian, bidding to do what their Targ husbands want. It’s interesting how Dyanna Dayne, Jena Dondarrion, Alys Arryn from AKotSK are well liked despite being non performing characters, because they can be self inserted into. Same with Valyrian women like Aemma, Daella, Naerys, Daenora who are well liked because they are passive npc characters who can be self inserted into”

It’s called the old “Angel in the House” trap the expectation that a woman must be endlessly moral, endlessly patient, endlessly nurturing, endlessly self-sacrificing basically a living monument to respectability rather than a human being. She is expected to absorb suffering gracefully, never seek power openly, never express anger, never prioritize herself, and never act in ways that disrupt male authority or social stability.

Link🔗:

"The Angel in the House" is perhaps the best known of the Victorian images of ideal womanhood. Written to his wife, Patmore lauds the virtues of a dependent wife who maintains a domestic haven with little interest or activity in the larger world outside her home, husband and children. Her specific qualities of “unselfish grace, gentleness, simplicity, and nobility reveal that she is not only a pattern Victorian lady but almost literally an angel on earth” (Gilbert and Gubar, 22). Patmore’s poem became a Victorian best-seller. So influential was the poem that Nina Auerbach notes that it “became a convenient shorthand for the selfless paragon all women were exhorted to be, enveloped in family life, and seeking no identify beyond the roles of daughter, wife, and mother” (67-69). But as Gilbert and Gubar point out, even from the eighteenth century conduct books for girls stressed the feminine virtues of “modesty, gracefulness, purity, delicacy, civility, compliancy, reticence, chastity, affability, politeness” (23). In exchange for embracing this domestic role, a woman was promised security and protection.

If those women are not the “perfect” wives / mothers if they refuse to bend themselves into some cookie-cutter ideal of femininity or the Victorian “Goddess-Mother” fantasy then they can never truly be “right”. Anything they do for themselves, for their children, or even for basic survival within a court designed to consume them they become selfish, evil manipulative.

And don’t even get me started on Dyanna Dayne, Jena Dondarrion, etc. people latches onto them so hard simply bc they’re remembered mainly for what they suffer and what they gave the men around them -- marriage, childbirth, death -- rather than being treated as full people with agency or complexity. The fixation isn’t really about depth or character writing, it’s about how easily passive mold that fans can project onto with their own oc/self insert version of them. The moment a character steps outside that passivity or becomes politically active, the reception shifts completely, even if they’re written with way more complexity. I’m sure if Dyanna Dayne, Jena Dondarrion were active women who actually moved the plot, they’d get way more hate.

How is that calling Aemma a better queen than Alicent…? Aemma Arryn wasn’t an active queen. The book gives almost no concrete information about her “queenship” beyond her marriage to Viserys, her pregnancies, and her death in childbirth. There isn’t really a basis in the source material to make her as a “better” or “worse” than Alicent.

How is that Rhaella is a victim but Cersei isn’t? Both women were trapped in abusive marriages to violent, controlling husbands. Both endured marital rape, humiliation and fear. Yet people see Rhaella primarily as a tragic victim while denying Cersei similar sympathy, despite the clear parallels between them. Why? Because Cersei didn’t die in childbirth and refuses passivity? She manipulates, seeks power, expresses rag instead of quietly enduring suffering. Her agency makes her threatening in a way passive suffering does not.

These women have been loved by many people because of their passivity bc of what they represent (suffering, duty, and their sacrifice for male characters) which makes them easy to idealize and project onto. Their value becomes tied to how much they endure rather than what they actively do in the story. And that’s also why women who are more active or plot-driving get a very different reaction.

D)

“Only valyrian women have the right to fight for themselves and their children OR only men like Maekar who despite being on the “antagonist” side gets free sympathy from fandom that antagonist women do not. Visenya and Maegor were also villains in Alyssa Velaryon and Rhaena’s story but the same toxic fans who champion Visenya usurping the throne for her son hate Alicent for doing the SAME freaking thing i.e.”

Yes, There’s a selective white/European style of fandom feminism that is Valyrian/dragonblood women as inherently more worthy of admiration than Andal women and there’s racial purity bias too. I’m sure if Catelyn, Alicent, and Cersei were Targ women with dragons, they’d be called girlboss feminist icons, while Visenya, Rhaenyra, and other Targ women being Andal would make them far more hated.

[aegor-bamfsteel]

"Childbirth isn't quite the killer in Westeros that it was in medieval Europe in the real world, since Westeros has the maesters, who are a considerable improvement over medieval barber/surgeons."- Grrm. What do you think about this statement?

Well, let’s crunch the numbers!

According to the article “Reconsidering maternal mortality in medieval England: aristocratic Englishwomen, c. 1236–1503”, each birth carried a risk of about one per cent, and therefore, approximately 1 out of every 20 (5%) women would die in childbirth, so it was hardly the driving factor for elite women’s mortality.

According to the ASOIAF wiki, there are 24 women who are known to have died in childbirth/due to childbirth complications; I’ll add Lyanna Stark to the list because it’s confirmed in the show she died in childbirth with Jon Snow, so that’s 25. According to the Noblewomen category, there are 492 named ladies (of course not all dead), and approximately 85 of whom we know the cause of death. 25/85 is a little less than 30% of all known deaths of noblewomen, making it by far the leading cause of female mortality, and about 6 times more dangerous in ASOIAF than in medieval England.

Hence the data implies the opposite of what GRRM said: childbirth is much more a killer of women in Westeros than in the real world, despite the maesters’ supposed skill. It’s possible that of the women listed that have died, none of the rest of them died in childbirth; but it’s still telling that in order to (not even fully) match the 5% statistic of medieval England, every one of the 492 listed noblewomen would have to be dead and no more of them from childbirth than the canonical 25. It’s a poorly researched statement that seems to be in response to the claims that GRRM kills too many of his mothers in childbirth, which, as the numbers indicate, is entirely accurate.

[sansa-stark-is-me]

The more a character feels historically grounded, the more people tend to hate them because realistic characters are usually constrained, contradictory, compromised, and shaped by the social systems around them instead of acting like modern power fantasies.

People say they want “realistic medieval women,” but the second a female character actually behaves like someone raised in a brutal patriarchal feudal society valuing marriage, children, family duty, reputation, religion, social survival, they start calling her weak, annoying, regressive, or evil.

A lot of audiences only like “historical” female characters when they secretly think like modern people with modern freedoms and modern feminist language. The second a woman feels too authentically shaped by her world, people get uncomfortable because she stops functioning as easy wish fulfillment.

That’s why characters like Alicent, Catelyn, or Sansa get more hatred than dragonriding fantasy characters. They feel closer to the actual emotional and political realities of aristocratic women in medieval-inspired societies: constrained agency, strategic marriages, motherhood as political survival, soft power instead of brute force, emotional repression, power through diplomacy and social intelligence.

Meanwhile people are more forgiving toward characters wrapped in spectacle (dragons, prophecy, magic, warfare, chosen-one narratives) because fantasy aesthetics soften or distract from the harsher social realities underneath.

Ironically, the grounded characters are doing the heaviest thematic lifting in the story. They’re the ones making the world actually feel historical instead of just becoming dragon CGI and modern politics wearing medieval costumes.

[aquamarinemarie]

It's amazing - but not the least bit surprising - how female characters who are natural and comfortable in their femininity, are at least somewhat religious, and think and act in a much more realistic way are routinely and viciously shit upon by fans who only want to be spoon fed a power fantasy. A masculine power fantasy, I might add, repackaged and dressed up in a pretty pink bow.

While ordinary, non-magical, vulnerable, often powerless women and girls are treated far too often like the real villains of the story - when they're anything but.

Catelyn being annoying and giving Jon the cold shoulder will never be enough to make her a bigger monster than Tywin. Sansa being painfully naive and bickering with her sister will not make her a bigger monster than Ramsey Bolton. Nor, will Alicent having the audacity to defend her children ever make her as monstrous as Blood and Cheese.

Treating these three characters specifically like they're the most vile, evil, greedy, and disloyal figures to ever grace the pages of ASOIAF and Fire and Blood, is simply outrageous.

[sansa-stark-is-me]

This is just Misogyny disguised as criticism of “traditional roles.” Internalized misogynistic ideologies towards characters that are coded as traditionally feminine.

[historiclover]

The thing about "traditional roles" in a medieval setting is that George isn't actually writing it. He's writing Victorian stereotypes that still mess up how people understand the real Middle Ages today.

Even without dragons (which, obviously, real medieval women didn't have), women had real power and agency.

Widows were entitled to 1/3 of their husband's lands/incomes—even if they remarried.

Men couldn't enter business, sell property, or get a loan without their wives' permission. A deal could be voided if she didn't sign.

(Shoutout to @aegor-bamfsteel post about the Law of Six and how in Westeros, only women get punished for adultery.)

And medieval queens?

Matilda of Boulogne (King Stephen's wife) was a countess in her own right. She ran the administration for their lands and was the reason Stephen lasted as long as he did during the Anarchy. She actively led troops and managed military campaigns. That's the woman Alicent or Helaena should be based on. Neither actively participate in the war, worse, in the show, they are sitting around waiting for things to happen, like Rhaenyra. (And no, I don't mean literally picking up a sword. A person can lead a war without fighting. Like Tywin)

Isabella of France, the woman people compare to Cersei, successfully led a coup against her husband and put her son on the throne. You can debate how she did as regent, but she did it.

And she was far from the only queen to go to war against her own husband. Constanza Manuel's family went to war twice after her husband cast her aside and imprisoned her.

On child marriage: Margaret Beaufort is NOT the example.

She was used as a cautionary example of why you shouldn't consummate marriages that early.

Eleanor of England married at 9 to the child king of Castile. First child at 19. (The marriage was about a border dispute, that was why it was done so early)

Warwick the Kingmaker married at 10. His wife was 8 and a very rich heiress with no brothers. Their first child, Isabel, was born when she was 25.

Mary de Bohun married at 12 but lived with her mother for 4 years. She moved in with Henry IV at 16, first child at 17.

Isabella of Valois (the youngest English queen consort ever) was 6 when she married, widowed at 11. She lived her entire time as queen apart from her husband.

Eleanor of Provence married at 12-13, first child at 16.

Isabel of Aragon married King Denis of Portugal at 11, but the marriage wasn't consummated until she was 17.

Denis’ father, Afonso III, married his second wife when she was around 9 (Afonso desperately needed legitimacy and alliances since he usurped his brother). Their first child was born when she was 17. (Important to note that he had no successor at the time, yet he didn't sleep with a 13-year-old like Viserys)

And on and on and on. Worse, Asoiaf confirms the maesters and lords know you shouldn't consummate a marriage so young.

Medieval noblewomen inherited lands even when they had brothers. They led armies, ran administrations, ran businesses, and overthrew kings. They also corresponded with Popes and scholars, were writers, poetesses, painters, etc. We see close to nothing of this in Asoiaf. Was the society misogynistic? Hell Yeah. But George made Westeros far worse, and he didn’t need to.

[sansa-stark-is-me]

Agreed.

This is why a lot of what feels like “medieval gender roles” in ASOIAF is actually closer to modern reinterpretations of the Middle Ages rather than the historical reality itself. That includes things like exaggerated ideas of courtly femininity and simplified contrasts between “soft women” and “hard men.”

And that matters because those inherited stereotypes still shape how readers understand both the real Middle Ages and fantasy worlds inspired by them. People end up treating those portrayals as historically grounded when they are layered with later cultural myths about the period when we talk about “traditional roles” in ASOIAF, it’s worth remembering we’re not just looking at medieval world we’re also looking at modern storytelling traditions that already came with their own biases about gender, power, and society.

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

That's also why Westeros's view on illegitimacy is much more punitive than IRL medieval Europe: because the American culture GRRM grew up in is puritan. If a king fathered a child, he was EXPECTED to give them a bunch of lands and titles, not barely tolerate their existence, and his family was expected to maintain pleasant ties to them.

[historiclover]

Yes! King medieval Kings even picked up mistresses according to their line. I study portuguese medieval history and is so interesting to understand what was happening. The Kings gave their mistresses lands in her own right that when they died would either pass to the children of the couple - bastard children - or revert to the crown. Women gained something for sleeping with a king, and the King had land being worked given to someone who would be more loyal to him (thus pay him his taxes)

At some point, a lot of old houses had main branches die out and only in the last 20 years did people start to look at those last women of old lines and realize they were the Kings mistresses. That those bastard sons inherited those old honors.

And we see, specially in lower classes, couples who didn't marry in the Church. It didn't matter, the law considering them married. And most of the Kings chancellery is him giving out lands and legitimizing bastards, like, dozen of them.

The fact that Robert abandons bastards and the women should be commented on and frowned upon. It is political and economic stupid too.

And its not like Westeros lacks land. I got into a argument about how stupid it is second sons (like Otto) don't have lands on their own right considering the size of Westeros. The land Oldtown controls is bigger than most european countries.

Same for the small council... don't Kings give out lands to their servants? What's the point of wanting to serve the King if you are not a lord? Land owening should be more important than coin.

But again, Westeros feudalism makes no sense in a lot of ways. The other day in school a friend of mine was shocked when I told Jeyne Poole and Beth Cassel are lower nobility sure, but heiresses before the war even started. He didn't even realize it. And this was because people thought they should be companions to Sansa and Arya because they thought they were children of servants.

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

https://www.tumblr.com/godihatethisfreakingcat/817039971085172736/do-we-actually-have-prior-to-daerons-conquest?source=share

I hope you don't mind leaving my rant. Feel free to ignore it .

Raids are awful and often used to target innnocents not the people in positions of power.

And it is interesting that Dorne in a way is not that different from the Iron Islands, the Free Folk and even the Mountain clans of the Vale. But they don't the same scrutiny from the fandom.

Raids often include sexual violence and Dorne has shown this (but Dorne somehow is still feminst-land for most of the fandom, where "we don't hurt little girls").

We see the free folk and the Vale Clansman constantly kidnapping of women to the point it is expected by everyone. And of course we get a front row seat to Euron's taking of the shield islands. And considering no one bats an eye at what happened to lord Hewett family, it is the modos operandi in the Iron Islands.

And what pisses me off is people saying this groups (not the Iron born) are justified because they are being oppressed by the lords of Westeros.

We know that the lords of the Vale, often they attack the Clansman to get knighthoods. And yes, there is a wall that literally keeps the free folk for getting a better life in a place not torn apart by long winters.... But, and I guess for this fandom it needs to be stress over: kidnapping women isn't the way.

And they don't just kidnap highborn ladies for ransom. No, all this groups do it for sexual reasons and with women from all classes.

This isn't never justified. Using the show, Olly had reasons to hate the free folk and specially wanting to see ygritte die. I know everyone hates Olly (including the showrunners) but I don't. I want to give that child a hug and a family (which the free folk took from him)

Crowfood Umber has every reason not to want people who believed kidnapping women is "marriage" anywhere near is lands. Specially when they did that to his only daughter and the only surviving child he had left.

The story makes us side with the free folk. And I do want them to get a change to have better lives, as long as they stop their so called "stealing" wives.

It's okay! I type fast, so you're in luck.

Since Dorne is one of the Seven Kingdoms, probably the closest of those groups is the Iron Islands rather than the clans and the Free Folk, who are more of a loose confederation always fighting with each other. I agree that we're supposed to sympathize with the latter two because the Westerosi lords do mistreat them, and at the same time, we're provided examples of why their behavior towards civilians (especially women and girls) is dangerous. That's a nuanced view. With the Iron Islands, it's generally agreed that despite their poverty and poor reputation among Westerosi, their actions are deplorable and contribute greatly to how they're perceived. Quellon Greyjoy was the first lord known to have done something about it and his reforms were erased completely by his sons.

If the Westerosi are right to distrust the Ironborn because they keep pillaging the coastline and literally think that *not* pillaging makes you weak, then why do the Westerosi have no right to mistrust the Dornish, particularly the families who either participate in or approve of continuous attacks? Even in the Dornish-Reacher feud before Joffrey's wedding, we have a sum total of one bigoted joke (from Joffrey), clashes in the training yard, and an anti-illegitimacy comment from Olenna. That's not good, but it's hardly systemic disenfranchisement. Oberyn didn't have the hammer brought down on him for disabling Willas Tyrell because it was acknowledged to be an accident, and the two of them are even friends! So he's not considered fully trustworthy, so what?

[historiclover]

I agree. And I'm so happy to have found blogs with actual nuance takes. I was shocked when I first began reading posts and meta how people tended to be pro/anti entire groups. And it makes me sort of annoyed that most seem to be anti Andal and kiss the grounds any Martell walks in (Oberyn above all, despite the very problematic way he treats women bellow his status), or make the Starks into proto feminists (never Sansa of course 🙄)

But it makes me even more mad the way they constant glorify the "stealing" of wives. Like like Ygritte is supposed to be the "wise old person" equivalent opening Jon's eyes. Or worse, Val.

People nodding and clapping to Ygritte saying if a woman doesn't want to be married (kindapped) she can just kill the man is so problematic, and i don't think George even brings it up.

And worse, is a real life mindset about DV.

I have the same problem with fan favorite Maege and Dacey and their comments about Lynesse. The fact that your society forces women to fend for themselves is a problem of your society not the person. Lynesse was a teen when she was made to marry a man old enought to be her father and sent to a place to unlike what she was used to. Just because she didn't like carvings, or had soft hands, doesn't make her lesser. And people in the fandom who remember lynesse tend to hate her.

It is the same as someone saying a woman deserves to be abused because she didn't take self defense classes.

That a girl deserved it because she wore shorts skirts or is too beautiful.

[sansa-stark-is-me]

The more a character feels historically grounded, the more people tend to hate them because realistic characters are usually constrained, contradictory, compromised, and shaped by the social systems around them instead of acting like modern power fantasies.

People say they want “realistic medieval women,” but the second a female character actually behaves like someone raised in a brutal patriarchal feudal society valuing marriage, children, family duty, reputation, religion, social survival, they start calling her weak, annoying, regressive, or evil.

A lot of audiences only like “historical” female characters when they secretly think like modern people with modern freedoms and modern feminist language. The second a woman feels too authentically shaped by her world, people get uncomfortable because she stops functioning as easy wish fulfillment.

That’s why characters like Alicent, Catelyn, or Sansa get more hatred than dragonriding fantasy characters. They feel closer to the actual emotional and political realities of aristocratic women in medieval-inspired societies: constrained agency, strategic marriages, motherhood as political survival, soft power instead of brute force, emotional repression, power through diplomacy and social intelligence.

Meanwhile people are more forgiving toward characters wrapped in spectacle (dragons, prophecy, magic, warfare, chosen-one narratives) because fantasy aesthetics soften or distract from the harsher social realities underneath.

Ironically, the grounded characters are doing the heaviest thematic lifting in the story. They’re the ones making the world actually feel historical instead of just becoming dragon CGI and modern politics wearing medieval costumes.

[aquamarinemarie]

It's amazing - but not the least bit surprising - how female characters who are natural and comfortable in their femininity, are at least somewhat religious, and think and act in a much more realistic way are routinely and viciously shit upon by fans who only want to be spoon fed a power fantasy. A masculine power fantasy, I might add, repackaged and dressed up in a pretty pink bow.

While ordinary, non-magical, vulnerable, often powerless women and girls are treated far too often like the real villains of the story - when they're anything but.

Catelyn being annoying and giving Jon the cold shoulder will never be enough to make her a bigger monster than Tywin. Sansa being painfully naive and bickering with her sister will not make her a bigger monster than Ramsey Bolton. Nor, will Alicent having the audacity to defend her children ever make her as monstrous as Blood and Cheese.

Treating these three characters specifically like they're the most vile, evil, greedy, and disloyal figures to ever grace the pages of ASOIAF and Fire and Blood, is simply outrageous.

[sansa-stark-is-me]

This is just Misogyny disguised as criticism of “traditional roles.” Internalized misogynistic ideologies towards characters that are coded as traditionally feminine.

[historiclover]

The thing about "traditional roles" in a medieval setting is that George isn't actually writing it. He's writing Victorian stereotypes that still mess up how people understand the real Middle Ages today.

Even without dragons (which, obviously, real medieval women didn't have), women had real power and agency.

Widows were entitled to 1/3 of their husband's lands/incomes—even if they remarried.

Men couldn't enter business, sell property, or get a loan without their wives' permission. A deal could be voided if she didn't sign.

(Shoutout to @aegor-bamfsteel post about the Law of Six and how in Westeros, only women get punished for adultery.)

And medieval queens?

Matilda of Boulogne (King Stephen's wife) was a countess in her own right. She ran the administration for their lands and was the reason Stephen lasted as long as he did during the Anarchy. She actively led troops and managed military campaigns. That's the woman Alicent or Helaena should be based on. Neither actively participate in the war, worse, in the show, they are sitting around waiting for things to happen, like Rhaenyra. (And no, I don't mean literally picking up a sword. A person can lead a war without fighting. Like Tywin)

Isabella of France, the woman people compare to Cersei, successfully led a coup against her husband and put her son on the throne. You can debate how she did as regent, but she did it.

And she was far from the only queen to go to war against her own husband. Constanza Manuel's family went to war twice after her husband cast her aside and imprisoned her.

On child marriage: Margaret Beaufort is NOT the example.

She was used as a cautionary example of why you shouldn't consummate marriages that early.

Eleanor of England married at 9 to the child king of Castile. First child at 19. (The marriage was about a border dispute, that was why it was done so early)

Warwick the Kingmaker married at 10. His wife was 8 and a very rich heiress with no brothers. Their first child, Isabel, was born when she was 25.

Mary de Bohun married at 12 but lived with her mother for 4 years. She moved in with Henry IV at 16, first child at 17.

Isabella of Valois (the youngest English queen consort ever) was 6 when she married, widowed at 11. She lived her entire time as queen apart from her husband.

Eleanor of Provence married at 12-13, first child at 16.

Isabel of Aragon married King Denis of Portugal at 11, but the marriage wasn't consummated until she was 17.

Denis’ father, Afonso III, married his second wife when she was around 9 (Afonso desperately needed legitimacy and alliances since he usurped his brother). Their first child was born when she was 17. (Important to note that he had no successor at the time, yet he didn't sleep with a 13-year-old like Viserys)

And on and on and on. Worse, Asoiaf confirms the maesters and lords know you shouldn't consummate a marriage so young.

Medieval noblewomen inherited lands even when they had brothers. They led armies, ran administrations, ran businesses, and overthrew kings. They also corresponded with Popes and scholars, were writers, poetesses, painters, etc. We see close to nothing of this in Asoiaf. Was the society misogynistic? Hell Yeah. But George made Westeros far worse, and he didn’t need to.

[sansa-stark-is-me]

People love Targaryen women because they come packaged with everything that looks empowering on the surface: dragons, spectacle, dominance, that whole “exceptional bloodline” mythology. Visenya is the perfect example she rides a dragon, wields a sword, stands beside conquest and violence, and she’s called a “feminist icon.” But… feminist for what exactly? She’s not dismantling patriarchy and not challenging the system. She’s actively helping build and enforce a system that is just as hierarchical and violent as any other.

But because her power is visible and aggressive, people reads it as empowerment. It’s power that looks good on screen and feels satisfying to support.

Now compare that to Alicent. Her power is quieter, more grounded, and honestly more historically accurate she works through court politics / (not military), trying to protect her kids. And she’s called “misogynistic” or “anti-woman.” Why? Because it’s not flashy. It’s not dragon-backed. It doesn’t give that same illusion of being above the system it shows what it actually looks like to live inside it.

That’s where the “selective feminism” comes in. It’s not about supporting women as a class or understanding how women being victims of the system. It’s about supporting women who feel exceptional, who look powerful in a way that’s easy to romanticize and women who can be turned into icons.

And Targaryen women fit that perfectly! They’re written as exceptional visually, politically. So people gravitates toward them and builds this idea that they represent female empowerment, while other women like Alicent, Sansa, and Catelyn get dismissed or villainized for working differently.

There’s also a deeper layer where this intersects with Valyrian exceptionalism. The way Targaryens are writing (silver hair, dragons, “closer to gods than men”) feeds into this idea that they are inherently more worthy of admiration. So when people say they support “feminist characters,” but it’s almost always Targaryen women, it starts to look less like feminism and more like a preference for a specific type of woman: powerful, and aesthetically idealized.

Meanwhile, women who don’t fit that mold who are more historically accurate, political, maternal, restrained, or just not written as “mythic” don’t get the same support. Their actions are judged more harshly and they’re denied the same complexity.

So yeah, it ends up creating this weird fandom dynamic where: Visenya can enforce conquest and still be called feminist BUT Alicent demanding power for herself & her children is framed as internalized misogyny. It’s not about feminism anymore It’s about which version of female power people find more appealing to project onto.

[historiclover]

Once again, your meta is incredible. I do agree people tend to compare Targaryen women (dragonrider ones) to other women to show how badass they are; something that makes no sense. Women in Westeros had no such immediate, powerful threat. So, of course, Catelyn, Sansa, and Cersei have to find another way to get power in their society. I find it very frustrating when people compare Catelyn to Alysanne. Catelyn has no dragon she can use to force the lords to listen to her or attack the Lannisters. The amount of strength/power you have influences how you act. The story shows us this.

I have a lot of thoughts on Visenya and how the fandom perceives her vs how she truly is. Sure, we can debate and have, often about the 3 conquerors. But Aegon didn't act in the same manner as Visenya and Maegor did. And Visenya had no problem with Maegor’s actions. Sons of the Dragon could have had a throw line about some tension between Maegor and Visenya, but we never heard about it. And she dies before Maegor gets to his worst, so we are "spared" from knowing what she would think of the Black Brides and the fate of the women Maegor married.

But I also thing there is a critic to be made of George’s own writing, because outside the Targaryen women, the only “female warriors” we have that are not warriors by necessity (Asha, the Mormont of Bear Island, crannogmen or the Free Folk; and if the story made a bit more sense, the Umber and Mountain Clans too); they are “unconventional beautiful”. Even Visenya is “harsher” in her beauty, same with Obara, being the “not beautiful” Sand Snake. Brienne – no explanation needed. Arya (despite being a child, so I have a problem speaking of her “attractiveness”) is in text, often seen as less traditionally beautiful than Sansa.  The two female warriors in the Dance are Sabitha Frey, the “sharp-featured, sharp-tongued harridan,” and Alysanne Blackwood, who “had little of a woman’s softness about her.”

It is like we can’t have women being high-born warriors and also be soft and feminine, or be associated with “prettiness”. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth, like Westerosi women are only interested in bows or swords because they are bad at singing or embroidery. The HBO universe sure didn’t help with that either.

[rylandsgrace]

Does it fucking kill you too? Not anymore.

Hollanov + season 1 timeline

[transexualpirate]

"at least venezuela lost a dictator" "the good thing about trump's invasion" "maduro deserved it" oh my god some of you are dangerously susceptible to fascist propaganda.

unfriendly and honestly hostile reminder that trump isn't invading venezuela because maduro is a dictator, or because of drug cartels. he's doing it only and exclusively because they have desirable oil reserves and no other reason. reminder that venezuela is a comparatively poor country that will never financially recover from this. reminder that venezuelans are suffering with the bombing and the air strikes. reminder that trump did it to steal from them and no one did anything. reminder that this sets a dangerous precedent and now all trump has to do to invade another country is claim they're in a dictatorship. reminder that trump is a fascist dictator.

this will only be bad, for venezuelans and for all of latin america (and possibly the whole world) in the long run. trump did this not to help the venezuelans or their country, but to steal their petrol and get away with it. and he will. because that's what dictators do.

[sansa-stark-is-me]

Why does Alicent have to make an effort towards Rhaenyra. Has to be bend the bridge between them, and make her children love Rhaenyra.

Rhaenyra never tried to that. Rhaenyra as a lady of her own house (Dragonstone) with financial independence and probably also a income from the crown could very well take her siblings under her wing. She could ward Helaena or Aegon in her household. It would be strange. But Daeron is fostered at Oldtown (a strange choice by Alicent since they don't need to court favor with their own house, but George needed Daeron there I guess).

Because again Rhaenyra is some special snowflake. And it think it is interesting seeing how her own self-absorbed mentality, due very likely to spending her entire life being told how "special" she was, ultimately makes her a terrible political actor.

Rhaenyra used the Arryn coat of arms in her banner. Yet we know she never spoke to her cousin Jeyne. We have no mentions of her aunts Elys and Amanda. And or their own children. The last two is probably because George wrote about them in F&B (same with Rodrik Arryn sister who we know nothing about other than she was a lady in waiting). But still, Jeyne was her cousin even before that. Jeyne is possible the best companion/supporter to have. Rhaenyra has a dragon that can get her into the Eyrie in less than a couple of days. Why are they not talking all the time? Why didn't Rhaenyra offer her young cousin a hand when her own family tried to steal her claims?

Rhaenyra's entire political storyline seems to have been a tour she did as 16 year old. Then she did nothing. The book doesn't even have her at the small council like the show did. Or did Alicent. Which I thinks makes a lot of sense. I never liked that Alicent was in the council prior to 120 when Viserys health made him impossible to rule. Only Visenya/Rhaenys and Alysanne attended them, and it is an important point to me, as we see the slow decline of queenship power.

It is even worse when we consider Jaehaerys and Alysanne spent their reign traveling Westeros. But Viserys never leaves the capital. Ok. Viserys is incompetent and doesn't have a dragon to travel as quickly. But Rhaenyra those! Use it for more than burn people! Is that to much to ask? Jaehaerys and Aegon I showed how dragons could be used for political proposes.

Cersei, who hates women and is considered by many a bad politician, knows she needs to build alliances with other families. She hates the Tyrells but knows she needs them.

Dany, who didn't have any formal education, understand the need to have fosterings and hostages. That she needs to work with people she doesn't like and build alliances to rule. Rulers can't be isolated from those around them. Not even monarchs.

How can Rhaenrya, who supposedly is "bold and bright" (even if the text actually never shows any of this. The contrary I would say), who sat at the foot of the Iron Throne since she was 7 and was a cupbearer to the King (a position that only Tywin and Steffon are known to have had) is so utterly incompetent at reading the room.

There is not one single political or ruling decision that Rhaenyra makes in her entire life that is good. Show!Rhaenyra at least proposed the Helaena/Jace married. Which is good to get a green hostage, but at the same time I would like to know what Daemon and Corlys think of it since there would be no Queen Baela.

Rhaenyra seems to inspire people based on what? Being a pretty teen? That's it. Why? Many girls on asoiaf are beautiful and neither had people forget laws to crown them.

Honestly, I think houses sided with TB because of Corlys and Daemon. But saying will probably sound anti feminism. But it makes more sense to me.

Daemon we know was loved and hated by people - which makes sense in the Westerosi context. Corlys was the Sea Snake, basically a legend.

And also because it seems Jace was truly a formidable player for his age. I think the text suffers from not caring about him (or Luke or Joff. Because in the end, George only wants Daemon's line to continue on). But Jace got the Vale and the North on his side. Jace did more on half a year dragonback than Rhaenyra her entire life.

So, it sad that the best political/military actors on TB are all men. Rhaenys seems to have had a presence but we don't know a thing she said or did besides Rook's Rest. Actually for a woman who was almost Queen, we know nothing of her character. Show Rhaenys is probably top 3 worse people alive. Hess saying killing smallfolk doesn't account actually made me stop watching the show, together with the Rhaenicent agenda.

The Dance was supposed to be the Princess vs the Queen. But both the books and show utterly fail at that. George was too in love with Daemon Targaryen to commit to Rhaenyra being the head of TB, and the show is more concern with vibes and fanservice than actually cohesive writing (which was what destroyed Game of Thrones)

Rhaenyra’s privileged laziness

I totally AGREE with everything you said. The entire emotional labor of the family cannot fall on Alicent’s shoulders. People love to dump all responsibility onto Alicent as if she alone should mend the family, make peace, make Rhaenyra happy, make her children adore their half-sister, and magically smooth over structural conflicts created by Viserys and the entire feudal system. Alicent cannot “make her children love Rhaenyra” when Rhaenyra never tried to know them. People speak as if Rhaenyra was some warm, loving big sister who was denied the chance to bond with the younger kids. But in canon, she barely interacted with Aegon, Helaena, Aemond, or Daeron. She did not spend time with them, didn’t build any trust, didn’t treat them like siblings, never refers to them as “my brothers” always “my half-brothers” The only time she pushed to “interact” with Aegon or Aemond was to demand punishment for the “bastard” insult And that’s it. That’s the relationship. You cannot demand that Alicent “make her children love Rhaenyra” when Rhaenyra showed no interest in them and no desire for familial closeness. Even in feudal terms, Rhaenyra didn’t act like siblings in royal families who were politically raised together to avoid conflict. She simply didn’t engage. Viserys creates the conflict ?Alicent is supposed to fix it. Rhaenyra refuses to bond ?Alicent is supposed to fix it. The children dislike each other ?Alicent is supposed to fix it. Tension rises ? Alicent is supposed to fix it. Violence erupts ? Alicent is supposed to fix it.

Why is Alicent expected to be: the therapist, the mediator, the stepmother in a modern sense, the emotional adult, the bridge-builder, the moral anchor and the peacemaker…while Viserys sits back doing nothing…and Rhaenyra refuses to engage? This is deeply sexist in both directions: it treats Alicent as the default caregiver, it treats Rhaenyra as a child who needs “fixing” instead of an adult heir with agency it excuses the king’s utter failures. Alicent had power, but not emotional control over othe r people’s feelings. And certainly not over the royal succession, which is the real issue. Viserys broke the family. But people want Alicent to be the emotional janitor.

I talked about Rhaenys HERE She’s mentioned, she fights, she flies her dragon, she’s clever but beyond that? Barely any exploration of her strategies, her counsel, or how she could’ve ruled. Even her sons, who might have been strong heirs, are barely acknowledged in terms of their potential. It’s sad because GRRM sets up this figure who could have been a real counterpoint to the chaos of the Dance, but instead, she’s mostly a footnote in history a brilliant character we never get to fully see.

Rhaenyra grows up believing the crown is hers by right, not something she has to maintain. Viserys drills this into her: you are the heir, the realm swore to you. So she internalizes a dangerous idea: “If they oppose me, they are wrong not politically relevant.” That’s not how power works in Westeros. Cersei understands this. Dany learns this the hard way. Rhaenyra never really does. Yes, she sat at the foot of the Iron Throne. Yes, she was cupbearer. But being present ≠ being mentored. Viserys doesn’t train her to rule. He shields her from consequences. That creates entitlement, not competence.

She refuses to do the unglamorous work of power. Politics is boring, humiliating, and transactional: fostering kids you don’t like, marrying for alliance, not desire, flattering houses you despise and sitting through insults and smiling. Cersei does this (badly, but she does it). Dany does this instinctively. Rhaenyra avoids it. When things get tense, she doesn’t stay and fight politically. She leaves for Dragonstone. She hears rumors starting to nip at her heels and immediately runs to Dragonstone. Cersei understands that absence is surrender. Power is proximity. If you leave the center, someone else will fill the space. Rhaenyra vacating King’s Landing gives her enemies oxygen, time, and narrative control. Cersei would never. Even at her most unstable, she clings to the Red Keep like a lifeline because she knows the moment she’s gone, she’s finished.

She reads disagreement as betrayal When people hesitate, gossip, or express doubt, Rhaenyra doesn’t think: “How do I neutralize this?” She thinks: “How dare they?” Her laziness absolutely shows in her motherhood too, Joffrey not understanding how the dragon-bond works is genuinely insane. By Westerosi standards, 11yo is a teenage. Robb Stark is leading armies at fourteen. And yet Joffrey doesn’t seem to grasp even the basics: that dragon access is regulated, that dragons are not family pets. Dragons are the Targaryen equivalent of nuclear weapons plus royal legitimacy. Understanding how they are housed, accessed, and controlled is basic Targaryen literacy. Rhaenyra herself more or less admits she didn’t prepare him When Joffrey tries to mount Syrax, Rhaenyra’s reaction was, “He doesn’t know.” In other words, he doesn’t understand how dragonbond works. But if he didn’t know, the question is: why didn’t you teach him? This isn’t just an oversight it’s a clear failure to prepare him for the responsibilities and dangers of being a Targaryen heir/prince.

GRRM writes her like she’s constitutionally incapable of doing the “hard” political or military work that every ruler even the dumb ones gets to do. And THAT reinforces a bigger gender problem in F&B: High-femme-coded women can be tragic, emotional, or beautiful but they cannot be competent. They cannot be strategic. They cannot shape events. Meanwhile, all the best tacticians, war leaders, political thinkers? Men. Every. Single. Time. BUT in Team Green, we have Alicent, a woman who is intelligent and decisive arguably the most competent strategist in her faction. She reminds me more of Corlys than of a traditional “courtly consort,” consistently thinking ahead and acting with foresight, rather than JUST reacting emotionally. [Of course, she had moments of anger and emotional turmoil. Even Corlys, who is usually measured and pragmatic, reportedly wished for Rhaenyra’s death after Rhaenys’s death. Still, that didn’t stop them from offering peace terms and trying to STOP the war, making decisions that anyone with a brain would]

Rhaenyra is written as one-sidedly incompetent and tyrannical.

Rhaenyra’s story in Fire & Blood is frustrating because, as the protagonist of her *own* war, she’s systematically denied agency by the way the history is written. Watsonianly, she could have been a strategic leader: she had years on Dragonstone, sat on councils, issued orders, and ruled effectively in her father’s name at times. She understood politics and dragons, had allies, and could have exercised influence without personally swinging a sword. She had the resources and capability to plan logistics, oversee armies, and guide the Black faction yet the narrative strips her of these victories, focusing instead on paranoia, grief, and alleged incompetence.

Rhaenyra’s failures weren’t just the result of bad luck or misogyny; part of it comes from her own personality and upbringing. As I said she was born into privilege, raised to believe her status alone made her rightful heir, and spent most of her life surrounded by sycophants on Dragonstone. She underestimated rival factions, and relied on fear rather than strategy, which in Westeros is a recipe for disaster. Her “laziness” is less a moral failing than the product of entitlement being born Targaryen, she could afford to be complacent for a time. Combine this with a volatile personality, emotional impulsiveness, and obsession with status, and it explains why she made choices that weakened her claim rather than strengthened it. It was her own fault, driven either by a lack of political intelligence or by this privileged ‘laziness’ she’d developed from being told her whole life that the throne would just fall into her lap.

The real problem with F&B portrayal of Rhaenyra is that the show keeps saying it’s about a woman fighting to reclaim the throne, but then refuses to actually let her fight for anything. She becomes a symbol, not a participant. Other characters get the agency, the strategy, the momentum, the political vision. Daemon gets to be the war-brain. Corlys gets to be the logistical mind. Even Rhaenys gets to be the unexpected wildcard. But Rhaenyra… who is supposed to be the reason this war even exists, is left constantly reacting, grieving, freezing, or being blindsided by decisions made without her. The result is a story about her war that treats her like a side character in her own succession crisis. And this would be fine if the whole point was that she collapses under pressure if the story wanted a tragic, spiraling character study. That can be powerful. But then the decline needs to be gradual, layered, psychologically consistent, and rooted in her political environment. What the show does instead is skip the build-up entirely. One son dies, she’s shattered. Another dies, she withdraws. Daemon goes rogue, she just stares. The council talks over her, she shrinks. It’s not a descent; it’s a collapse with no scaffolding. Her arc doesn’t feel like a tragic unraveling it feels like the writers didn’t know how to let her participate in her own war without making her “too assertive” or “too masculine,” so they kept pulling her back into passive mother-mode.

Which is wild, because real medieval and early modern women in power absolutely didn’t just sit there and let grief erase their political instincts. Caterina Sforza was out here storming fortresses while pregnant. Women can be strategic, relentless, and emotionally devastated at the same time. Fiction should understand that. Especially fiction that pretends to be about a woman claiming a throne. This is what makes the GRRM writing so frustrating. Rhaenyra is supposed to be the head of the Blacks while Daemon acts as her general, but the writing flips that dynamic so hard that Daemon ends up feeling like the real leader and she feels like the emotional backdrop. She never gets the political victories, the strategic debates, the council authority, the problem-solving moments. Everyone else gets to be active; she gets to be symbolic. The tragedy of Rhaenyra becomes less “a brilliant, driven woman defeated by misogyny and circumstance” and more “a sad mother watching her life fall apart bc of her stupidity while men make decisions around her.”

And then the story tries to patch that with legacy. She fails, but her descendants succeed. She loses the throne, but Aegon III, viserys II and Daenerys exist, so the bloodline wins in the long run. And that is exactly the problem. That’s not feminist storytelling; it’s the exact patriarchal narrative structure the show pretends to critique. Women aren’t allowed to win for themselves they are allowed to birth the people who win later. Their personal agency gets erased and replaced with lineage triumph. Their political failures are redeemed by what their sons or descendants accomplish, as if the woman herself is just a historical footnote, a vessel, a tragic symbol rather than an actor.

Rhaenyra needs to be allowed to be both mother and monarch, not a mother whose grief overrides her political identity. Daemon loses children and keeps functioning. Corlys loses children and keeps functioning. Aegon loses children and keeps functioning. Rhaenys loses children and keeps functioning. But the show treats Rhaenyra as if her pain stops the plot, while their pain moves the plot. It’s a fundamentally gendered choice. Her grief paralyzes her; their grief empowers them. And that’s where the narrative quietly reinforces the same patriarchal dynamics it’s pretending to interrogate.

If they wanted her to go down like Empress Matilda or any genuinely medieval queen, then we needed to see her fight first. We needed the early political brilliance, the clever compromises, the stubborn pride, the charisma, the miscalculations, the pressure shaping her. We needed to see her actively governing, actively planning, actively pushing back, actively failing. The fall of a woman who actually fought is a tragedy. The fall of a woman who mostly reacts is just disempowerment. And that’s the problem: Rhaenyra’s downfall isn’t earned. It’s imposed. The writing positions her as the emotional core but not the political core, the symbol but not the strategist, the mother but not the monarch. For a story that claims to be about a woman reclaiming her birthright, it rarely allows her to reclaim anything not momentum, not leadership, not narrative power. Even her legacy is framed through the men who descend from her.

Which is why so many people feel frustrated. A story about a woman fighting for the throne should let the woman actually fight win, lose, compromise, misjudge, rage, command, collaborate, and shape the war that defines her life. Even if she loses, the loss should be hers. Her choices should matter. Her actions should echo. Her downfall should be a tragedy of her own making, not a fate she passively drifts into. Rhaenyra isn’t allowed to be complex. She’s only allowed to be wrong. Her downfall is written like: “See? This is why women shouldn’t rule.” And bc the writing makes her tyranny so rigidly, she doesn’t even get the tragic grandeur that other tyrants in ASOIAF get. Compare her to Maegor who was cruel but effective, Aegon II a disaster, but given motives and nuance. Visenya too. Rhaenyra? Just wrong all the time. Just bad at ruling bc “woman + stress = meltdown.” And the cruelty the maesters assign her isn’t even tied to political logic it’s emotional, impulsive cruelty, the classic “female hysteria” brand of villainy. She’s never allowed the dignity of intentional tyranny. Which is wild bc women rulers in actual history were ruthless, strategic and yes, sometimes tyrants but none of them were this two-dimensional. Tyranny doesn’t automatically equal incompetence. If George wanted to write about a woman being a “tyrant” to foil Daenerys the “savior”, that’s fine but let her be fully realized. Don’t strip her of agency, reduce her to a one-note caricature, or make her decline purely to prop up other characters. Even a tyrant can be smart, strategic, and compelling; she can be cruel and smart, flawed and effective.

“The princess vs the queen” story never happens.

Yes, In the books, George’s obsession w// Daemon is so clear. Rhaenyra should be the head of her faction, making the big calls, commanding the loyalty of lords, and navigating court intrigue but instead, the narrative keeps pulling focus to Daemon’s brilliance, his charisma, his schemes. Rhaenyra becomes reactive, sidelined, and reduced to her emotional responses to losing her sons, her court, or her dragons. Even when she does act politically, it’s often framed as impulsive or cruel, so readers lowkey see her as incompetent.

GRRM could’ve made the Dance as Rhaenyra vs. Daemon, with Daemon trying to seize the throne for himself. Canonically, he’s ambitious and ruthless enough that he could gather support from key houses. If he were written as the direct usurper, all those beats would instead be Rhaenyra’s moments to shine or fail, making her political and military acumen front and center. Every victory or setback would be hers alone, her legacy not just “through her kids” or reactive measures, but through her own decisions and strategy. Rhaenyra’s character would’ve been far more compelling and tragic, and the story would’ve avoided a lot of the “Daemon overshadowing Rhaenyra” we see in both the books and the show.

I think the whole point of Rhaenyra’s story is to foreshadow Cersei’s story in The Winds of Winter. This is why GRRM wrote her story… Rhaenyra ends up feeling like a cheap, clumsier version of Cersei: same ambition, same desire for power, but none of the cunning and none of the subtlety. She’s like the knockoff that can’t even imitate the original’s skill. And tbh, I don’t like cheap copies of characters. The Dance feels like a setup for Cersei’s downfall in The Winds of Winter. Rhaenyra’s story is basically Cersei’s future: both start powerful but become paranoid, hated, and alone. Rhaenyra’s “Daemon” is Jaime, who abandons her for another woman, just like Daemon left Rhaenyra for Nettles. Both lose their children, their power, and the people’s love. Rhaenyra was denied help by Houses Rosby and Stokeworth when she fled King’s Landing, and Cersei wronged those same houses, so she’ll likely face the same fate. If Margaery (half Hightower) dies like Helaena (half Hightower), that could spark riots and mark the final collapse of Cersei’s rule. She’ll flee after the death of her last bastard and then Jaime finds her and kills her just as Rhaenyra was ultimately killed by her brother… fulfilling the prophecy.

[EDIT: As for “(a strange choice by Alicent since they don't need to court favor with their own house, but George needed Daeron there I guess).” I don’t think it’s strange. The reason Alicent sent him is that her children had no political role in King’s Landing. They had zero autonomy nothing beyond being prince and princess which is a huge problem. I think Alicent was trying to secure political power for them, either by betrothals or marriages into influential houses, but Viserys blocked all of it because any real power for them threatened rhaenyra. This is why she took the steps she did.]

[nonstickwaffleiron]

as an archivist I am begging you

put dates on everything

don’t believe digital stuff is preserved forever - if it’s really important (documents, photos, etc) print it out

name your files accurately I know it sucks but please

don’t destroy the original just bc you scanned it

rubber cement is the devil’s adhesive use photo corners and quit gluing shit

you will NOT remember write it down

if you staple things to the inside of a folder I will find you

your public library probably has equipment to digitize old media for free or can at least get you connected with somewhere that does!

[frizox]

the abuse and humiliation Greta Thunberg is going through at the hands of the Israelis needs to be put in context with the dehumanising torture Palestinian prisoners are put through on the daily: the fact that darling Greta can be blindfolded and forced to crawl and kiss the Israeli flags - despite her international popularity and the protection her own government should guarantee her - is only possible because Israelis are allowed to beat, humiliate, starve and rape Palestinians to literal death without anyone stopping them.

[danaa-scully]

PERIOD DRAMA APPRECIATION WEEK 2022 

↳ Day 3 - Favorite Costumes: The Tudor Lady’s Wardrobe

[insp.]

[hacked-wtsdz]

You can’t win as a woman in fiction. Be too positive, you become a Mary Sue, have flaws and those flaws are why almost nobody likes you. Be moderate, you have wet-cabbage personality, be exuberant, you are an unrealistic example. Have strong morals, and you’re badly developed, be morally corrupt and you’re hated with such vigour fans will send hate mail to the actress who plays the character. Be kind and soft and in love, you’re a representation of sexism, be cruel, harsh and cold and you’re just a bitch. Be a complex, realistic, ambiguous character, and either your flaws or your positive traits will be ignored or blown out of proportion and into oblivion. There is no winning for female characters.

[starlightshadowsworld]

As always, the Irish speak nothing but facts.

How many more innocent civilians have to be killed by Israel before you condemn that for it?

That is a genocide.

That this is a crime on all accounts.

And deserves to be punished to the full extent off the law.

[uss-edsall]

Ridley Scott, regarding his new Napoleon movie, is being aggressively defensive about its inaccuracies with historians. He's gone on record saying "When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.’" This is a classic argument of people with no idea how historians do their work, how historical accuracy is determined and evaluated, and - in Ridley Scott's case in particular - how important it is to properly portray historical accuracy in other media.

The reason why Ridley Scott is being so aggressively dismissive of complaints about historical accuracy is due to past beef leading to a problem he likely has.

This is a movie that, by din of being touted as a 'nonfiction' movie about a historical figure, is basing much of its marketing on historical accuracy by default. The trailers show it's not, and reviews by historians say it is riddled with dozens if not hundreds of inaccuracies. Napoleon's portrayal is frankly a surface level depiction and nowhere near the nuance that historians were hoping for.

Scott's defensive about it. He need not be. If he had a historical consultant then he could go "I'm not an expert on the time period, but I have someone who is, ask them about it" and fob them off on his movie's historical consultant. It's a whole Thing. He doesn't have one, however, so he has to defend it personally.

You see, Ridley Scott probably didn't hire a historical consultant for Napoleon. The last time he had one - Kathleen Coleman for Gladiator - she was so upset over the inaccuracies he pushed through and how little her work affected the film, she requested her name be taken off of it.

Why this is important is because so many more people will watch a movie made by Ridley Scott than I or any other person could write. More people will watch Scott's Napoleon in the States than five hundred books about Napoleon combined worldwide.

More people watched Dunkirk than ever read a book about the Evacuation of Dunkirk. The movie Breaker Morant did so much for public perception about the execution of a genuine war criminal people in Australia still on occasion call for a pardon for Morant.

Fundamentally, mass media like movies will always have more impact of a popular perception about somebody, a time period, an event. That's why Ridley Scott making an inaccurate movie and going 'oh, you weren't there, you didn't see it with your own eyes, so how could you know, I don't have to listen to you' is a problem.

[historicity-was-already-taken]

Why I get so exercised about historical fiction and and the impact it has on mass memory construction.

Motherfuckers hire historical consultants, but get mad when we make things too “boring” or “complex” or “unmarketable.” The past isn’t a sandbox for your OCs who maybe resemble real people. Historical fiction isn’t fucking fanfic. If you make a historical film and claim accuracy, you have both taken responsibility for the construction of collective memory, and demonstrated why it’s fucked that filmmakers wield that much power over mass memory.

[amuseoffyre]

I'm pretty sure my salty history of scotland tutor was the historical specialist on Braveheart and my first day in her class, she put the film on and tore it to pieces, because she knew a lot of people signed up for her class because of that bloody film.

[indieninja92]

and the important part here for me is "if you make a historical film and claim accuracy". you dont have to. its fine. you can make abraham lincoln vampire hunter, you can market it as a vivid reimagining of the past, you can say you're doing historical fiction inspired by these figures. thats all good, and in my opinion actually is kind of interesting to study in and of itself - what does it say about modern american narratives about america that the vampires in ALVH are confederates and enslavers? how does that compare to portrayals of confederates in other fiction? etc etc.

theres also some interesting stuff here about how we narrativise the past - how we always, necessarily have to narrativise the past in order to talk about, the act of talking about it is narrativising it, we're always picking a place to start and a place to end and choosing whose perspectives to explore and which facts to include etc etc. if your fictionalised historical drama is a way of exploring those questions, cool! they're good questions!

but if you claim your work is 'based on a true story' and market it as being historically accurate, then for fuck's sake do your research and accept a little responsibility.

[senso1954]

this tiktok screenshot ruined my life i need to see the serbian pigeon movie so so badly but it doesn't exist it's so foul to make this bad of a point with something so cool and then take it away from me.

[deseretgear]

Tiktok marvel fans really will be out here like "movie fan SHOCKED because i'd rather watch superhero movie #54 in blue and not a sensual 1987 french horror film about a man discovering his wife may not exist set in what is gradually revealed to be a space station" as if you're supposed to agree that superhero movie #54 is the clear winner in this comparison

[kirbymongerr]

Love the idea of a story about a complex issue that's told from the perspective of something that cannot comprehend or care about the issue. The way the story would be sliced up and moments that a human would consider pointless would be focused on because the pigeon happened to be there would be hype as fuck

[beardedmrbean]

[silken-scarves]

Ok FINE I made the movie poster of it

Mališa, otherwise known as Little One, is a pet pigeon owned by a conservative butler of the Austro-Hungarian aristocracy. She is loved, and she is pampered— until her owner is murdered in cold blood, and she is left to fend for herself in Sarajevo.

In the wilds of the city, she feeds from the poor, working nationalist radicals, and the vieux riches alike.

To Mališa, there are no ethical concerns. No politics. No burgeoning nationalism.

There are only hands that feed her, and hands that do not.

[headspace-hotel]

This is compelling. Consider me fucking compelled.

[cinemaocd]

We are in danger of inventing another critically acclaimed cult film bro jerkoff film that doesn't exist....

[recess-is-in]

I would watch this so many times.

[neophyte-no1]

The film isn’t actually all in black and white, just mostly. * It starts in color, albeit muted, as it establishes its life in the butler’s care. Soft beige, pinks, blues. The world is conservative and clean, predictable. The film still looks ‘old’ even with these colors. * The first black and white film happens in a jarring sequence that happens in a series of blurs as her cage is covered and tossed into the street. It’s not immediately clear that the film has become black and white; when the curtain lifts, the gray of the street just looks like a filthy city street without color. It’s only when you see the people, completely black and white, that you realize the color is gone. * Seemingly random objects are still in color throughout the film, though. A cufflink here. A napkin there. A wristwatch. Small, often beautiful things that the camera seems to follow for no obvious reason. One of these, she finds in a park near a bush - a doll with a dirty dress. The camera fixates on it for a long time, and she settles near it, nesting in the park.

Things slowly get worse and worse throughout the film as the war comes. We get snippets of conversations from old men feeding pigeons, from worried mothers talking about how they're urging their husbands to move while feeding messy kids their sandwiches. Eventually, the same crumbs you came to the park for, humans are coming for as well.

At the end of the film, Mališa is picked up and put in home for carrier pigeons. She is loved, fed, groomed, together again, even if different. Then she's shipped off to who knows where, a message is strapped to her leg, and she's let free. She has no idea that the message she's sending is a warning that could save Saravejo.

She has no idea why she is shot from the air. All she wants is to fly home.

She flies back to the park. She flies back to the doll. Exhausted, bleeding out, she dies.

As the camera pans out from the broken body of Mališa, a colored sequence fades in: Mališa's home life before the assassination, and the many little things inside it. One by one, we see the seemingly random colored objects that we saw throughout the film put in their place in her happy memories. The cufflinks of her owner, shining as he reaches for her to scratch her head in the morning. The napkin he held his breakfast rolls in as he fed her crumbs. The wristwatch he looked at every day before he said goodbye for work. The doll his little daughter favored when she came up and cooed at her, who she watched play teaparty. * Cutting back to the present, her body is gray on the concrete ground. We hear the sound of footsteps, and of wings. We never get to see if someone finds the message.

[themythicalcodfish]

shit yeah

[harperhug]

Forget zephthustra or whatever the fuck. We need to goncharov this shit.

[serioustrannyfaggotwithatail]

um...woah