A feminist reading, radical (HAR!) or otherwise, finds much to like in these books. They contain many examples of women who have agency, women who are rounded people allowed a full range of human expression, women who are defined by what is in their heads, not what is between their legs.
In fact, one of Martin’s themes is how power is acted out via the patriarchy. Dany’s brother sees her only as a possession and sells her, at 14, into a culture where women are prized only for the fact that they might give birth to a male. Cersei says in the fourth book, I think, something like "If I’d been born a man I wouldn’t have to fight like this, but these are the weapons available to me… Brienne, the Maid of Tarth, who possess formidable marshall skills, is criticized by male fighters for not being pretty, for wearing men’s clothes, etc.
This is not a series that invites much scorn from feminists. Unlike, say, almost anything by R.A. Salvatore.
Are you sure this is the series you are thinking of? Because I’m having a hard time getting into the series, but I’m halfway through book one and have no idea what you are talking about.
Exactly. I was referring to separatist feminism (is that the right term), which is thoroughly out of fashion now but can be relied upon to bring the batshit.
If you need to copy a list of people related to a certain philosophy from Wikipedia wholesale, it might be a sign you’re just looking for a bogeywomyn.
What you’re actually referring to is one person’s LiveJournal. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Or it could be a sign that I don’t care that much about the issue, and it amuses me to prove idiotic statements (separatist feminism? THERE’S NO SUCH THING SIR) wrong with trivial effort.
I think metta is quite aware of the status of the separatist movement in feminism (look, Dworkin!). And I’m pretty sure he also knows that the only reason separatist feminism is brought up in a forum like this is not because of actual awareness of the movement or its texts, but to make a “lol, feminazis”-point.
Yeah. Whenever someone points at ‘radical feminism’ and accuses it of a particular opinion, it’s always helpful to scratch at that a little and try to find out who exactly it is the poster is referring to. Seven times out of ten, it’s some little nugget - “Sex is rape!” - that’s been pulled way out of context, or, and this is more usual, the woman the poster saw say that thing about Firefly is not even a credentialed feminist theorist.
Dang, guys. I was just makin’ a joke and now here you all are, crawling up Funkula’s ass and accusing him of making the opposite point it seems like he was trying to make. I’m sorry! I know allecto is crazy! Christ!
See, that’s where you got me wrong. I’m not accusing “radical feminism” of having batshit opinions, I’m saying that people with serious personal issues relating to gender interaction will hide behind the label, as with the Firefly person, our penis-obsessed Martin non-fan, etc.
My main problem with the books, and I am about half through with the latest one (and have been for, oh, over a year now, just can’t be bothered to get back to it), is that it is unrelentingly grim. I really don’t want that much grimness in my fantasy literature–if I want grim, I can turn on the news. Realism, sure, but killing off puppies (even wolf puppies), the Red Wedding, the general brutality of it all–it just wears on me. There’s some fascinating and extremely well-done stuff here but overall I find it depressing rather than interesting.
I guess I’m more than willing to trade some verisimilitude for peace of mind.
But now that I know there’s rampant penis all through the text, maybe I should read it again!
