#faction: the patriarchy

[allelitewrestlings]

You're different, Nick. You're special. (...) I see things in you that I've never seen in another person.

[fuckyeahorangecassidy]

This is so random to me lol.

Like, I get that it's an open challenge, but still lol

[fractaldewdrop]

this segment was freaking hilarious

"Killswitch, why can't you be more like Nick?"

[drakaripykiros130ac]

How exactly can Aegon the Usurper justify his claim to the throne when he allows a woman such as Lady Jeyne Arryn act as Warden of a Kingdom during his so-called “rule”?

[calcifys]

This book I'm reading for feminist bookclub ... lol

[kefnut-the-gweilologist]

there has to be a feminist writer out there who has written extensively on this

[majorbaby]

a woman on the internet just said men are trash so i guess the only choice left for me is to become a neonazi. patriarchy hurts men too, but not as bad as the famously powerful and mainstream online leftist faction.

[taliabhattwrites]

Could you talk a little more about how and why the most basic feminist discourse is being presented as TERFism? Does it go any deeper than plain old misogyny and transmisogyny, or is that all there is to it?

This is a really great question! The answer is, however, short and disappointing: It's just (trans)misogyny. Let's discuss it a bit, though!

On a fundamental level, while it's relatively easy to acknowledge that women, as a whole, have been cut a raw deal, taking that to its logical conclusion--a critique of male-supremacy--is a tough sell even amongst the more progressively-minded. Feminism is uniquely burdened with formulating a theory of liberation that does not hold men accountable for benefiting from patriarchy, does not at any point imply that men are actively invested in upholding patriarchy, and advocates a way forward that does not require men to give up anything or meaningfully change their relationship to gendered and reproductive labor.

It is a fundamentally impossible ask. Some of this stems from naturalizing sexual difference and viewing the subordination of women as an inevitable outcome of biology, but a decent amount of the pushback comes from a reluctance to truly unpack relations of intimacy and kinship with a critical eye. Feminism is easiest to do when telling an obviously misogynistic stranger to check his assumptions, or discussing the cold facts of being under-compensated and over-burdened at your job. It's harder to contemplate the destabilizing truth that most men genuinely think you have less internality than they do, will expect you to do the lion's share of domestic labor in a relationship, and will feel emasculated if you at any point demonstrate more competence, wit, intelligence, or verve than them.

It's hard to admit that most men won't put in the work to see you as human.

So instead, we get a lot of rationalizations. Feminism is too white, too bourgeois, too ciscentric, too anglocentric, and unlike every other school of thought or ideology, it is forever tainted and cannot be redeemed. It is not allowed to have factions, contradictions, missteps, or to evolve. Much easier to rattle off a canned line about how feminism doesn't account for something that it has definitely accounted for if only one bothered to treat it seriously and actually engage with the literature, and consequently chuck the entire history of women's liberation into the bin.

There is, at the end of the day, a real psychological cost to being aware of just how pervasive societal misogyny is, and not everyone is willing to pay it.

[watcherintheweyr]

I saw a post earlier talking about how Alicent is not being rewarded by the patriarchy she has served so faithfully, and how the son she and Otto raised to the throne 'to protect his life in the way they knew they must' and I just... I have Thoughts so I'm gonna say em.

Alicent thought that by weaponizing the patriarchy against Rhaenyra and by serving it and it's goals, she'd be the exception to their sexism and disdain of women. She thought she'd be rewarded by signing with the oppressors and the oppressive system and it's values, and she's now facing the reality and the consequences of what's happened. And she's also getting a taste of the undermining and humiliation that she turned against Rhaenyra for years.

Honestly the fact that she even has a seat in the Small Council makes no sense at this point - it barely made sense with Viserys, given Alicent's views on women having power. That they should not have the power but should 'gently guide' those that do. In truth it's tragic irony and yet somehow comedic, seeing her realize that she will not be rewarded or exalted in Any way for all she's sacrificed and betrayed.

But also: Otto knew that Rhaenyra wouldn't turn on her siblings. He never really believed she would kill them. Those were lies he fed to Alicent that she in turn poisoned her children with in order to serve his ambition: which was originally to have his blood ruling on the throne but has become to have his blood on the throne as a puppet-king that he can control.

The MOMENT they moved forward with the usurpation, Otto attempted to have Rhaenyra and her entire family- including two toddlers- assassinated- the very thing he claimed Rhaebyra would do. Because he was never horrified by such a concept, and he never genuinely thought Rhaenyra was the sort to do such a thing. But he absolutely is- and entirely unprovoked. And yet somehow Alicent is shocked by this- somehow she never realized that to 'secure his succession, Aegon and his faction would have to do to the true heir and her family what she thought the true heir would do- which is either incredibly poor writing, or just blind, willful ignorance of what a usurper would have to do to stay secure from rival claimants.

Otto suggested Rhaenyra as heir to further distance Daemon from the throne (which was due to his hatred of Daemon, his knowledge that Daemon saw hom as he was, and his.. greed and possessiveness of Viserys, which was referenced now on s2e2 in how Otto spoke of Viserys, the man he puppeted, controlled, and manipulated for decades with total reverence.)- and because he thought she would be immediately displaced once his daughter gave Viserys the son that Aemma was killed for.

He never thought that Viserys would seriously hold her as his heir- and never thought she would be so difficult to manage or control, either. We see the horrified realization in his eyes in episode 2 when she shows him up at Dragonstone- that she is actually something formidable, that she just succeeded at something he did not- and saved his life from Caraxes in the same breath. That she, a girl, was taking this role as heir seriously, and that she might actually be able to play the part, and do it well.

So he made a new plan- to fill Alicent's mind with poison and lies about her once best friend, to ensure she would turn her children against Viserys' heir, and thus help him to further his goals.

But he miscalculated. Deeply. Because now Aegon's jealousy, insecurity, and hatred are running unchecked as he sits as the most powerful man in the realm. Now his grandson's depravity guides his choices, and Aegon's hatred and jealousy of Rhaenyra, his desperation for love and attention, and the power cirrently goong to his head... All are far stronger than any respect he may have once held for his grandsire- and his mother.

She betrayed and destroyed herself and Rhaenyra for nothing. She will never be rewarded for what Otto made her suffer or for what she did to disparage and demean Rhaenyra in the eyes of the men of the realm. She has served her use, as far as the men she thought to guide are concerned.

[la-pheacienne]

What I, an "extremely biased" targ stan, think about the function of Robert's Rebellion in the narrative and themes of asoiaf :

The Aerys regime was bound to be overthrown as a result of his paranoia and cruelty. Abuse of power leads to retribution.

The Lannisters were traitors then and continue to be traitors in the present timeline.

The current regime (the one that overturned the previous Aerys regime and is supposedly "better" because of that) is just as rotten as the previous one because it was founded on such cruelty.

The sack of KL (the peak of the Rebellion and the event that terminated the war) materializes Ned's valid guilt and remorse for associating himself with said regime, feelings that haunted him throughout his whole life and are pivotal in his arc in the present timeline.

The Starks, the Baratheons and the Lannisters' alliance that ended the Targaryen regime was meant to go to shit because it was founded on extreme cruelty and vileness. It was rotten from the start. Because of this, all of these houses were meant to start devouring each other, which is precisely what happens in the present timeline. Ned, Robert and Tywin each died disgraced and dishonored.

Foreshadowing of Dany and Jon's return that will hopefully break this rotten vicious power dynamic.

The sack of KL triggers Jaime's existential crisis for being an enabler of the new rotten regime. It showcases the vanity and contradictions of the strict moral code of knights and the impossibility of choice.

The sack of KL gives us context for House Martell's desire for revenge *against the Lannisters* in the present timeline.

Enlightened "neutral" faction of the fanbase that gets *The Themes*: Robert's Rebellion is about how a Machiavellian Pedophile wishing to get his dick wet for eugenic experiments destroyed his entire family and the realm + grrm subverting the prophecy trope aka prophecies are fake because they kill people delirium + Elia died because her aforementioned Machiavellian Pedophile husband took the Kingsguard with him to protect his side bitch/sex slave (depends) leaving her All Alone in the Sahara desert + targnation hates POC/Dead ladies club delirium/patriarchy destroys little girls/Lyanna is remembered only for her beauty uwu

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

People in the ASOIAF fandom are very obsessed with passive women they can project onto. The obsessions with the characters of show!Alicent, Sansa, Elia, and Helaena are perfect examples of this.

In the show, Alicent is changed from a woman who actively seeks power and heads the scheming of the green faction into a passive victim who watches and reacts to the men around her. And yet, despite this being a much more boring characterization, the show version is vastly more preferred by her stans. They condemn her book character as simply an "evil stepmother trope" while completely ignoring how their fav is just as blank and tropey as they accuse her book counterpart to be. Alicent stans want her to be the show's blank victimized canvas.

Helaena is someone who the show changed very little in the adaptation, because both book and show Helaena have little impact on the plot other than to be victims of their surroundings. Both women are forced to marry Aegon at thirteen and have his children, go through B&C, and are the least active members of the green faction. The show only added elements to make her more tragic: her dreaming and autistic behaviors. Helaena's character makes her the perfect canvas for certain fans to project themselves onto as she simply exists to be victimized and play the dutiful wife/daughter despite her circumstances, just like the show version of her mother.

Elia Martell is a woman who we know very little about. She died thirteen years before the events of ASOIAF and, unlike characters like Rhaegar and Lyanna, she has no pov characters who think about her enough for us to learn anything about her. The only things we know are that she was loved by her family, was in an arranged marriage to Rhaegar, had his two (confirmed) children, and was brutally raped and murdered by Lannister men. She is an unknown character and, again unlike Rhaegar and Lyanna, has no known active role in the events surrounding the Rebellion. Because of these things, she is, again, the perfect blank canvas for people to project on.

Sansa is, despite being a prominent pov character in ASOIAF, a very passive character. She rarely takes action in her circumstances and simply reacts to them while trying to survive. There's nothing wrong with this, she's a young girl who has never had to fight for anything in her life, it's not unexpected or condemnable for her reaction to her circumstances to be this way. However, her passivity is something her stans obsess over. She is praised for being the "perfect lady" and they project their desires to see her rule onto her and how they view her story.

These women have been chosen by these fans because of their passivity and tragedy. They love that the women have suffered in the name of the "duty" they believe is higher than them. Because they love passivity, they hate the women of ASOIAF who are active in their own lives and fight to better their circumstances. Characters like Rhaenyra, Arya, Daenerys, and Lyanna are all massive influences on the world and purposely chose to challenge the patriarchy. Since they did not take their suffering silently, theses certain fans view them as wrong and hate them. They only love the women they can project on and who simply refuse to fight for better lives.

[allelitewrestlings]

[tessarionbestgirl]

Hotd: " Patriarchy is bad! Women should be leaders because they are as competent or even better than men at leading."

Also Hotd: " Makes one woman weak until she becomes drunk with power and becomes a cult leader while the other betrays the entire faction she was part of because she doesn't want to spill blood."

[orbital-obvious]

Throwing my hat to the Team Black/Green Discourse

I'm bad bound due to shoulder pain, and I've been reading Team Black/Green takes and you guys, it's so fun. Here are my personal takes:

While exploring the changes from the book (and the reasons those changes were made) is interesting in a meta way, you can't assume book only details apply to show characters. What you see is what you get, for better or for worse

The show clearly favors Rhaenyra and tries to weave this "girlboss won't let the MEN put her down" narrative, and at the same time does her a great disservice because Rhaenyra and her faction are boring as fuck as a result. The greens faults are not only acknowledged but highlighted - which make them more interesting, human, and multidimentional, but then again the narrative goes and minimizes their fears and hurt, so, well, double edged sword.

Aegon only cares for his legitimate children. I also don't think the greens as half as unified as they are precived to be.

The question of "Did Aemond steel Vaghar?" is actually "are dragons property?" with extra steps.

Aegon was a usurper, and the Greens (Otto, if we're real) used the inherent misogyny of Westeros to instill him on the throne.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I have a hard time thinking Rhaenyra is this feminist queen. It's freedom for Rhaenyra, and maybe other women with dragons. I think it makes Rhaenyra a better character, actually.

How can Alicent or her children trust Rhaenyra which never acknowledged that Luke maimed Aemond, and acutally DEMANDED Aemond to be further hurt via questioning? The messege in Driftmark was clear: Rhaenyra (and by extention, her children) are more important than you, they can hurt you, maim you, even kill you, and you will STILL be at fault. There's an element of survival in the Green's usurpation, not only greed.

Rhaenyra suffers from misogyny. I don't think she would have no problem ascending the throne if she were a man and she is one of the most privileged people in the realm, but there are challenges she faces for the crime of being a woman alone.

I don't think Alicent thought that by serving the patriarchy she'll be the exepction - not consciously, anyway. I think this requires an understanding she does not possess. and, again, Rhaenyra being put on the throne isn't a big win to all women, just Rhaenyra. To side with Rhaenyra meant siding against her family -that was Alicent's decision in my eyes. The world is bleak and one must use any power that they have - same way Targaryan used dragons, Alicent + greens used the built in sociatal norms.

I don't know who needs to hear this, Aemond is not a little kid anymore. I'm not saying his life is perfect and no one is mistreating him, but he is not defenseless and he does have that cruel streak to him and he did very much undermines his brother, grandfather, and mother.

Aegon is implosive, Rhaenyra hardly acts. Aegon coronation started the war, and his decisions have propelled the war forward . Rhaenyra refusal to act pushed team black into a position where the only advantage they had was dragons, ergo, they had to get dragons involved and voila- bloodshed.

Daemon would not have let the Greens live, even if they had bent the knee. TBF, Daemon would probably find a way to kill Rhaenyra's older children to put his on the throne. "Rhaenyra would never allow this!" Rhaenyra can't control Daemon. We've seen it time and time again.

I really hate the "Rhaenyra put her children at risk because their bastards". Rhaenyra was married to a gay (possibly infertile) man and if she had no heirs of her own, it itself would weaken her claim more than having bastards (ask if most of the realm would know or even give a shit they are not legitimate - that's mostly house Valeryon's problem and people in their immidiate surroundings that see it as "immoral").

No, Rhaenyra did not put her children at risk for having bastards. She put her chidlren at risk by having trueborn, perfectly blond and Targeryan children with Daemon.

I said it in my last post, I'll say that again: Raehnyra fucking off to an undercover mission in King's Landing and not telling ANYONE about it was a dumb move in a list of dumb move. She essentially left her side without a ruler at a time of WAR, not to mention the panic of a queen being gone closely after an assassination attempt on her life that was barely stopped.

Alicent was one of the most powerful people (if not the most powerful) in the years leading up to Viserys death, practically running the kingdom while Rhaenyra never visited even once. Alicent was changing Kings landing in her own image (changing Targ decoration for the Seven symbolism). Alicent had power, authority and the ability to rule that neither Rhaenyra nor Rhaenys exhibited.

Viserys failed Rhaenyra for not teaching her how to cement her throne and make connections and allies. Rhaenyra grew into an adult who never had to fight for what she was given, a so called heir who sceluded herself in Dragonstone and never bothered to cement her claim which she would have needed to do even if she was born a man. The cycle continues, with the hints she never worried about securing Jace's spot or his legitimecy (Jace wanted to learn high Valerian and was clearly concerened, Rhaenyra doesn't see the issue and that itself is a problem)

Honestly kudos for Jace for securing the North/Vale. The show paints supporting Rhaenyra as "the right thing" and we never got to see Jace working and using his diplomatic skills. God forbid the boy will have a personality.

Criston Cole was a man of ethnic minority (Dornish, most cast is Andal/Valerian) from lower class and the power imbalance with Rhaenyra would not have flown if the roles would've been reversed. She pushed him to sully his own life work (becoming kingsguard) and he is right to be hurt about her not taking it as seriously as him - she does not have to face consequences, he does. I'm not even talking about the weird state of consent of the relations between them.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, that does NOT justify Criston Cole calling Rheanyra "Whore" and "Cunt". He uses her gender to hurt her - the only power imbalance in his favour in this relationship is him being a man and her being a woman, and he weaponizes it. "but it's accurate to the society he lives in!" cool, the society is shit.

There's probably more, but I'm tired and need to lie down. So. yeah. Feel free to comment, I'm interested in others thought about it.

[cuntess-carmilla]

Alright, let's try a thought exercise!

This thought exercise requires us to start by agreeing that women are an oppressed class (cis women, trans women, non-binary people who at least partially id as women or woman-adjacent).

If you can't concede that as a basis, then keep scrolling, this post isn't for you. I'm not here to convince MRAs that systemic misogyny – aka the patriarchy – is real. Alright? Alright.

I think we can all agree that, besides the institutional oppression faced by oppressed groups, they all also face acts of individualized concrete violence (which are then vindicated by institutions and/or sociocultural disinterest or even active acceptance).

You know, that thing we call hate crimes? Acts of violence committed against an individual by mere reason of an aspect of who they are which makes them oppressed and/or marginalized.

We discuss women as an oppressed class as well, but, save for specific feminist factions (largely, non-liberal feminists from the global south), no one really talks about misogynistic hate crimes.

Even though misogynistic men murder women and girls for no reason other than their own misogyny every day. There are exceptions, of course, but most of the time, when a man kills a woman it's not to steal from us, not as revenge for something shitty we did to them, not because we were in an altercation and it simply happened. No.

It's because "if I can't have her, then nobody can have her" (women as property), "she rejected me" (woman denied sex or romance to a man who wanted it), "she was trying to leave" (culmination of domestic violence), "she made me feel emasculated" (reaffirming masculinity through violence).

We're raped and otherwise sexually abused ALL the time as well, and our perpetrators are by far mostly cis men. I hope I don't have to go into detail on how that's related to misogyny.

Chile has pretty progressive femicide legislation as of somewhat recently. The legal definition of femicide went from being "male partner or ex-partner who murders his female partner or ex-partner" to "any killing of a woman for reason of her gender", which explicitly includes:

Women killed by men they were never involved with but who acted out of jealousy/possessivenes or as revenge because they were rejected.

Women being killed by men for being gender non-conforming.

Women being killed for being trans, lesbian or bisexual.

Women killed by men because they were sex workers.

(So, no, before the MRAs who kept reading get their panties in a twist, femicides in Chile are not defined as every single time a man kills any random woman. The motive for the murder has to be patriarchal bigotry in some form and that has to stand to scrutiny in court.)

If we accept that, like in the Chilean legislation of femicide, any act of violence committed by a man against a woman due to patriarchal bigotry is a misogynistic hate crime, shouldn't we be more alarmed with how astoundingly common and NORMALIZED hate crimes against women are?

How many women and girls do you know who have been sexually abused by a man or boy? How many which have been beaten? How many women do you know who have controlling and violent boyfriends or husbands or fathers or older brothers? How often do you hear about a woman who made it out alive by the skin of her teeth from the hands of a man who was absolutely going to kill her? And the ones that didn't make it? How about when misogyny intersects with race, disability, transness, gayness, socioeconomic class, religious minorities, and so on?

I firmly believe that the only reason we don't talk about these things as misogynistic hate crimes is because, despite being oppressed, women aren't a numerical minority. But, rather than that giving visibility to the violence we face, it invisibilizes it even more. It became society's normal to have approximately half of its population constantly subjected to hate crimes, to the point that there's whole TikTok trends dedicated to turning it into a joke (the "joke" where men pretend they're trying to suffocate their girlfriends with a pillow for being annoying) and until very recently it was perfectly ok for standup comedians to joke about it too. Precisely, because women are an oppressed class and violence against us is both socially sanctioned and encouraged, when it's hyper-visible, it becomes at best a fact of life that deserves no one's attention, and at worst it becomes a recurrent joke.

I, personally, believe that femicides and the largest portion of rapes suffered by women are misogynistic hate crimes, as are many other instances of violence women are used to now and that we deal with as a natural(ized) aspect of living as a woman. Which I know will get me called all sorts of names and slurs, but I can't see where my logic is failing.

[alicentsgf]

why are people so pressed about how Alicent ends up this season??? Like hotd hasn’t been good since s1 people also criticized everything back then but tbh Alicent from s1 was always headed to where she ends up?? I thought it was common knowledge that her last choice would always going to be duty vs love and s1 stated very well that Rhaenyra is that freedom for Alicent???? I absolutely hated the things they put Alicent through (alicole sex and for what? All of her sons being a dick to her??) her arc this season was badly executed but to blame and think that the writers are catering to rhaenicents? seems a bit stretch when the ship is hated by the majority of the show. We can argue in the journey of how Alicent get to the point she is now but it was clear for the beginning that the head of TG?? She would never be, sometimes I think that thanks to most of the general viewers didn’t understand Alicent as a character the writers thought if we put her in these humiliating scenes the viewers would understand that she is a victim of the patriarchy and the men who surround her, but I guess not even with that the GA and fandom as whole could ever understand her character and honestly im good with it, she’s a walking contradiction and i have read her character like that since the beginning, good riddance tho to the obnoxious people that kept bad talking Olivia for only doing her job (this is not a dig to you but the extended fandom that are attacking Olivia again for her character)

Why are we upset now? Because we dared to hope lmao. And now we're realising theres absolutely no coming back from this (it was already mostly ruined i know).

I think the issue is the choice between duty and love should have been made when she chose her children and grandchildren over viserys wish for rhaenyra to rule. Choosing love didnt have to and shouldnt have meant choosing rhaenyra. Like finally FINALLY she lets herself cast duty aside, because "what is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms", "you never love anything in the world the way you love your first child", "you imbecile (affectionate)", etc etc. That is what works in line with the original story AND the sympathetic sides of alicent we saw with in season 1. Sure motherhood shouldn't define women but this is a story abt a fucking lineage !! What do people expect. Of course its going to be about parents and children.

F&B might have been bare bones, but it at least had a strong political backbone to it thats been completely removed this season. That direction would have offered more oppertunities for alicent to be explored as a multifacted character. The problem is that because they angled this as a story primarily about misogyny rather than a story about the inevitability of the targaryen line imploding, they maybe thought they couldnt do that without making alicent look like an unsympathetic agent of patriarchy. (Most of the audience read her that way anyway so they did a pretty crappy job avoiding it). Rhaenyra represented a certain freedom for alicent in the story, sure, im not against that at all, but for the writers to suggest literally being with Rhaenyra is what alicent needs to do to achieve freedom from duty? To free herself from the shackles or patriarchy?? (🙄) Its so laughable. Alicents little grandson had to have his head sown back on for his funeral and Rhaenyras faction sent the assassin. Her daughter was traumatised. You dont just fucking come back from that. Really we should have known when viserys died how this was gonna go and I think in some ways we did because a big number of us were upset with the misunderstanding then, we just didnt want to believe what this signaled about where they were taking alicent. People are upset now because alicents character has become totally unrectifiable. We just never believed they'd diverge so much from the known plot points of fire and blood.

As for this bit you said:

" I think that thanks to most of the general viewers didn’t understand Alicent as a character the writers thought if we put her in these humiliating scenes the viewers would understand that she is a victim of the patriarchy and the men who surround her, but I guess not even with that the GA and fandom as whole could ever understand her character and honestly im good with it, she’s a walking contradiction and i have read her character like that since the beginning."

I have thought this myself and unfortunately I think you're right. In an effort to make alicent sympathetic they have created the most convoluted character i've ever laid my eyes on. Towards the end of season 1 we were already saying her being so forgiving after driftmark made no sense, but i was compelled enough by her because of olivias performance of that scene with the knife to be willing to wait to see where they took her this season. And its been an exercise in more of the same stupid shit. The issues in season 1 have just been amplified by the realisation that season 2 is just the same thing again and again and again for alicent. Shes just a punching bag and im sure thats in an attempt to get the audience to feel bad for her, because i cant see any other reason for it, but its just so badly written that shes no longer compelling or interesting or likeable really at all. Theres nothing to root for when you dont know who someone is. I have so little to say about her this season and that hurts honestly. Olivias performances deserved much better writing.