Is Game of Thrones Sexist?

Mr Trick

Scooby
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
18,076
Age
46
Location
London, UK
As some of you may know I am watching the show for the first time and am enjoying it a fair bit. But I can see why some call it sexist.

Yes its depicting a very masculine and sexist culture, but often it will linger on the sexy actresses and their private parts for a long time and there are scenes where it feels like its being sexy for the sake of it rather than in any context to the plot.

Also outside of the odd lead female character it seems like many of the females are one note stereotypes. Without giving away spoilers I think the character of Shae is sold a bit short at the end of S4. Up to that point she'd been quite a strong character, but in end seemed to sell out her values and become a one note traitor.

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: M
Yes its depicting a very masculine and sexist culture, but often it will linger on the sexy actresses and their private parts for a long time and there are scenes where it feels like its being sexy for the sake of it rather than in any context to the plot.

Yes, the invention of 'sexposition' - the belief that the audience will not listen to an on screen conversation delivering important plot information unless there is a naked pair of tits in the background.

Although I've not watched all the way through and not read the books and, while I know ever major spoiler and seen clips from all 8 seasons, can't really speak in detail of the actual later story lines or some of the smaller characters arcs I've always got the impression that the real sexism of GoT is out world not in world. Yes it depicts a masculine and sexist world - but that in and of itself doesn't make the story a sexist one. In fact, if you wanted to write a feminist story it would probably be far easier to set it in a sexist world than some woman centric utopia. Having an in world society deeply rooted in sexism doesn't mean a story is sexist if it is used to critique that sexism. And I would say that a lot of the villains of the show display appalling misogyny and that is part of their villainy and to that extent the show can be said to be critiquing the social structure.

However, out world, the writers made those decisions to have the sexposition scenes. I believe Emilia Clarke has spoken about how uncomfortable she was with some of her gratuitous naked scenes since the show ended. I think we see her naked breasts before she even speaks in the first episode - and at the time of filming she was 22 and a nobody. This was her big break. She couldn't not do the scene for the sake of her career. But it is arguable that she was exploited.

And of course, Emilia Clarke did get a career out of it. She is rich and famous now - and although that doesn't undo her discomfort or make her exploitation OK there will always be people who claim she could have said no and she walked out of it the winner. But there are so many naked women in the show - in the background - doing graphic and intimate things. And they didn't get a big career out of it - but this was the job on offer. If they want to work, they can't turn it down.


So, in an industry that is notorious for it's poor treatment and sexual exploitation of women I would say GoT certainly didn't help and possibly set things back a good few years. The amount of nudity was considered shocking at the time, this wasn't the writers sliding into the groove that was already there - they created a whole new groove, set a whole new standard for what you can get naked women to do on screen on mainstream television and future shows will now run with that. Shock factor only works once, which means having to make things more explicit and exploiting women even more to get the same reaction until the industry slams a lid on it and says 'actually this isn't OK, we're tightening regulations'.

As for more sexist themes within the wider story and the treatment of the major female characters ... well, I can't really get into that without spoilers 😉
 
I think we see her naked breasts before she even speaks in the first episode - and at the time of filming she was 22 and a nobody. This was her big break. She couldn't not do the scene for the sake of her career. But it is arguable that she was exploited.
There are other jobs, it's hardly going to be the last opportunity before destitution. The show had nudity and she was fine with that. I very much doubt it was sprung on her, when as you say it's literally the first thing on the page she would have been given.

Seems very puritanical to view nudity as unacceptable on TV and infantalising to suggest woman aren't capable of making a decision as an adult as to whether to accept a role or not.
 
gwenogjones
gwenogjones
as I said - always someone who will say she had a choice and minimise her discomfort and help prop up the industry repeatedly exploiting women.
You have to wonder whether feminists raising the concerns about bare breasts are on the same side as other feminists. In the Province of Ontario, one woman went bare-breasted one summer because the Bill of Rights claimed that men and women should have equal rights. She was arrested, tried, convicted, retried in the Supreme Court and acquitted. The law was subsequently changed to allow this. There are a lot of topless beaches in the world and a lot of people make use of them. Are they being feminist? Anti-feminist? Or does this matter to feminists at all?
 
I absolutely hated the 'happy hookers' schtick the show pulled. And the gratuitous sex scenes and the male gazey-ness of it all. But there were also female characters who had depth, facets and did things for themselves. So it was a balance for me. Overall the show seemed made for men by men, not sure how many women writers or producers were involved, but the show was aimed at the 17-35 year old male, and it showed. Not that I disliked the show, it was okay. The CGI and the battles were the best things in it.
 
HowiMetdaSlayer
HowiMetdaSlayer
to be fair the books are definitely had the same demographics in mind
You have to wonder whether feminists raising the concerns about bare breasts are on the same side as other feminists. In the Province of Ontario, one woman went bare-breasted one summer because the Bill of Rights claimed that men and women should have equal rights. She was arrested, tried, convicted, retried in the Supreme Court and acquitted. The law was subsequently changed to allow this. There are a lot of topless beaches in the world and a lot of people make use of them. Are they being feminist? Anti-feminist? Or does this matter to feminists at all?

It's really very simple.

Breasts are a natural body part, they are not disgusting, obscene or inherently sexual. If men can go topless then women should be allowed to go topless. The reason women can't go topless is because men have sexualised breasts and therefore her walking around with her top off is seen as obscene and sexual and titillating whereas a topless man is none of those things.

Feminsist can support the idea of women being able to go topless on the beach and still object to sexualised images of topless women. In fact - those sexualised images are why women can't go topless in public. It isn't counter intuitive, it isn't one group not talking to the other or wanting different things. It's women saying breasts are fine, my body is not obscene and if I want to go topless in public that should be OK in any place a man can also be topless - but don't objectify and sexualise me and my breasts when I'm just trying to live my life because that's not OK.

The more sexualised images of breasts we see the less likely it is that women will ever really feel safe going topless or be allowed to go topless to the same extent as men.
 
@Spanky True, but whores are real people too. The reality is most whores are forced into that way of life because of ending up on the wrong end of the breadline or being cast in that role by a sexist society which often doesn't offer women the same opportunites as men. The character up to that point had actually showed some values.

@Ethan Reigns The problem might be more than the majority of females on the show seemed to be portrayed as sex symbols with not much else to do. As I said at times the camera does seem to linger on them longer than is needed, and every time a couple gets together its seems oversexed up.

Like Pricey I still quite enjoy the show, but its a problem worth highlighting.
 
The character up to that point had actually showed some values.
That's because they changed the character from how she was in the book. The problem in changing the character from a money-hungry whore to someone that has some value is when she was killed in the book there really wasn't any bittersweet feelings. She betrayed Tyrion. She was only out for money.

In the show she is too sympathetic and her actions are more ambiguous. She certainly seems jilted (again, something she never was in the book) the problem was the show had to follow the course the book laid and the emotions behind that played out differently because of the changes to the character.

Sorta like basing Spike attempting to rape Buffy off of a woman's experience attempting to rape her boyfriend. You change a few dynamics and it doesn't play out the way you thought it would. The show Shae was far more sympathetic. She never lamented having to give up her gold and jewels or questioned Tyrion's manhood when he made her become a maid. She seemed far more amiable than the book version. In the book there was no question that she initiated the thing with Tywin because he was more powerful and had more money. He was a step up for her.
 
I've not read the books, so am basing this off comments here - but writing a female character as nothing but a 'money hungry whore' who we then feel no compunction about being murdered sounds like a pretty deep sexism problem in the core of the book.

Women who sell sex are the same as all other women. They have feelings, they have values, they have drives and ambitions, hopes and fears. They have wants and needs. they have people they love. They are not two dimensional characters defined by nothing but their profession. And they shouldn't be written as such. It's thre madonna/ whore dichotomy. A whore is nothing but a whore - and that has no place in either good writing or anyone decent's thought processes.

In fact, the fact that so called 'whores' are the ones who are presented as venal and callous and without value and it's not the men who pay to rent their bodies that are subject to this level of judgement is incredibly sexist. These are women with limited opportunities, who have no attraction to and no reason to like or respect the men who are using them, yet the fact that they don't like or respect these man is reason enough to castigate her. Meanwhile, the man is using her body with little regard to her feelings or how she may have ended up in a position where this is her only option and he is seen as the sympathetic one.

It sounds like the show tried to rectify these problems, by creating a human we cared about who happened to be a prostitute, and then ran onto problems because of the inherent sexism (I might even go as far as to say misogyny) of the book.
 
because of the inherent sexism (I might even go as far as to say misogyny) of the book.
The book(s) you never read but formed an opinion on.

It sounds like the show tried to rectify these problems,
The show also decided that one of the heroines would parade around naked and the show also decided that she was be raped on her wedding night. Neither of which happened in the book. So yeah. But sure, they tried to rectify the whores... good on them.
 
I think most characters of the show are stereotypes, not only the females. I watched till season 3 only though.

I’m kind of puritanical so I’ll admit the nudity was too much for me, but so was the general violence which I did not enjoy. I never found the show sexist personally, just gratuitous in those areas.
 
The book(s) you never read but formed an opinion on.

Based on what you said. on your own words. If your words are incorrect then I gladly retract the statement. All you have to do is say you were exaggerating or misrepresenting the depiction of Book Shae and I will agree my assessment is unfair. If what you said is accurate though, then what I said stands and is fair.

The show also decided that one of the heroines would parade around naked and the show also decided that she was be raped on her wedding night. Neither of which happened in the book. So yeah. But sure, they tried to rectify the whores... good on them.

I mean, I am literally the first person on this thread that agrees with @MrTrick that the show was sexist and I specifically state that the sexism on the show comes from writing choices so ...
I also state I can't get into further character details and arcs because spoilers - Mr Trick appears to be done with s4 - you've stomped all over said spoilers.

However, in this once case they have humanised a character and it is you that states this is a change from the book and that it is this change that causes the problem. If they made a conscious decision to humanise Shae then that, as far as I'm concerned, is a good decision - even if it creates a mess when she is ultimately killed. It doesn't undo later bad decisions but later bad decisions doesn't undo this good one.

Remember, I am not the person on this thread who ever said Game of Thrones wasn't sexist... you are though. So why now the outrage about later, unrelated sexist decisions?
 
No, I didn't. I think you have me confused with someone else.

No i don't.
The Bronze said 'the world is sexist the show is not.' You quoted this - took the time to quote it - and said 'Yeah. Pretty much History is sexist.'
To claim that that isn't you agreeing that the world is sexist but the show is not, i.e you saying that the show is not sexist, is splitting hairs to a degree as to make you disingenuous and just factually inaccurate.
 
No i don't.
The Bronze said 'the world is sexist the show is not.' You quoted this - took the time to quote it - and said 'Yeah. Pretty much.'
To claim that that isn't you agreeing the show is not sexist, i.e you saying that the show is not sexist, is splitting hairs to a degree as to make you disingenuous and just factually inaccurate.
I also said history is sexist and the books try to represent (to a degree) how history was at that time of the War of the Roses which is what the story was based upon.
 
Yes - but the question isn't was history sexist - the question is was the show sexist. The Bronze said no and you agreed with that assessment.

I know all about the war of the roses, it is my history and heritage after all. I know the books think they are based on the war of the roses - that has no bearing on whether the show is sexist. As I stated, a sexist structure for the fictional world does not necessarily equate a sexist story. You and the Bronze said something along the similar lines, where we differed was I went on to say ... but the show is still sexist. The Bronze said no it wasn't ... and you agreed with the Bronze not me - it's all up there.
 
I said pretty much when he said that the world is sexist.

But they also said the show was not. You quoted and agreed and didn't split hairs on it. You're splitting hairs now. Someone said 'no' and you essentially said 'I agree with this - as shown by my taking the time to quote it and my words of agreement and no dissention.'
 
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
Whatever dude. I'm done with this.
Back
Top Bottom