Asoiaf Fandom - Tumblr Posts

Also something that drives me fucking wild is seeing people refer to Dany and Arya’s roles as patriarchal or wish-fulfillment for men. Just yesterday I saw the phrase “patriarchal power fantasy” used. I need everyone to sit down and think about what “patriarchy” means.

For the purpose of this post, and any other post I make, please know that when I say “masculine” I am referring to stereotypes associated with the male sex and when I say “feminine” I am referring to stereotypes associated with the female sex. Masculine =/= male and feminine =/= female.

Patriarchy does not refer to masculinity. It does not mean that masculine people are in power (I wouldn’t go as far as to call Dany or Arya masculine, but bear with me). Patriarchy refers to systems where MEN are the sex caste in power. Men. Not masculine people. Under a patriarchal system, women are oppressed regardless of whether or not they conform to femininity, although the less a woman conforms, the more she is punished for it. Dany and Arya’s arcs are inherently ANTI patriarchal on the simple basis that they are female and they defy what is expected of women in Westeros. They can never represent male power fantasies because they are not men. Referring to their arcs as male power fantasies is telling on yourself. You are revealing that your view of women and what we want and fantasize about is narrow. Why would you assume that only men would desire to travel across the sea and learn the ways of a secret society of assassins? Why would you assume that only men would want to wield the power of dragons and amass loyal supporters?

You are part of the problem by assuming that the desire for power is a male trait. Yes, we stereotypically associate that with men. That stereotype, and what we consider masculine and feminine as a whole, almost exclusively exist to uphold the patriarchy. Women are expected to be peaceful pacifists, complacent, quiet, because that keeps us under the boot of the male caste. Consider why so many “strong” female characters are less feminine. Is it because people feel the need to make them more like men in order to be “strong?” I say no. At least, not most of the time. If this is what you think, you’ve got the order mixed up. Skirts, dresses, and heels are impractical for fighting and limit movement a lot. Thus, it wouldn’t make sense for a competent female fighter to be wearing them. These things have been forced upon women BECAUSE they are impractical. A woman who keeps her hair short and wears no makeup and wears pants and no heels is not trying to emulate men. She is shedding femininity because femininity is impractical and time consuming. Consider WHY so many traits associated with power, leadership, and combat are considered masculine. It’s the enforcement of the patriarchy. Female characters who chase down these things and embody these qualities and do not conform to femininity are not basically men. They are women who are rejecting the system. This is antithetical to the patriarchy and to male power fantasies.

In summary: a female character who has an arc typically associated with male characters can never be a male power fantasy BECAUSE she is female.

Obligatory note that women who do conform are not lesser and their stories are not less important—they just do not challenge the patriarchy.

Can you guys let me know what the most common ASOIAF ships are? These are the ones I know of but I’m sure I’m missing some. If you could reply or reblog or even send an ask with any I’m missing, that’d be great. No niche rarepairs, please. Only fairly common ones.

Jon/Daenerys

Jon/Arya

Jon/Sansa

Jon/Sam

Jon/Val

Jon/Satin

Jon/Ygritte

Daenerys/Arya

Daenerys/Sansa

Daenerys/Drogo

Daenerys/Daario

Daenerys/Tyrion

Daenerys/Asha

Arya/Gendry

Arya/Edric Dayne

Sansa/Tyrion

Sansa/Sandor

Sansa/Harry the Heir

Sansa/Jeyne

Sansa/Margaery

Sam/Gilly

Tyrion/Tysha

Tyrion/Bronn

Jaime/Brienne

Jaime/Cersei

Ned/Cat

Rhaegar/Lyanna

Renly/Loras

Those are all I can think of…… am I missing any fairly big ones? Nothing from anything pre-RhaLya, so Rhaenicent or Daemyra wouldn’t count. I mostly follow Dany, Arya, and Jon fans, with a few Sansa fans and some Briaimes too, so I’m probably missing a lot that exist for other POV characters. No ship discourse on this post please. No show exclusive characters either.

@cleverelaena88 hi I was the anon in the post this is from. I wanted to start a new thread instead of clogging the notes of someone else’s post. I wrote up an essay explaining it under the cut if you’re interested but it boils down to this:

1. I started thinking for myself about her place in the narrative.

2. I let go of petty feelings coming from my wounded inner child.

3. I realized I could continue to think for myself and that liking this characters doesn’t mean I’m aligning myself with objectionable things other fans of the character have said.

The way I feel about Sansa changed for a lot of reasons. I walked back on my stance that she isn’t important because I realized I wasn’t really thinking for myself and was just going along with the things often said by other fans of my favorite characters. If I remember correctly, she has as many POV chapters as Bran. The Vale plot is important to the story and it’s clearly not just relevant to Littlefinger or else… why would Sansa be involved? She didn’t need to be a POV character for the story to work but she is because she’s important. If Sansa was just supposed to be a “camera” to show the viewer what’s happening in KL and later the Vale, why did start off as a POV character in places where other POV characters were as well? She’s the only POV character in the Vale in AFfC, but if that was her only importance, why was she a POV character prior to going to the Vale?

Currently, she does feel pretty “cut off” from the main plot threads—the IT, the Others, and the dragons. At least where I’m at, halfway through AFfC. And I think that’s what makes some people think she isn’t important. But I kind of thing that’s evidence that she IS. She’s away from all of these major plot elements and is not in close proximity to other POV characters who are involved in these three elements, unlike characters like Arya, who are technically disconnected from those three elements, but are in close proximity to other POV characters (i.e., Arya encounters Sam in Braavos). Given that, why on earth would George continue to feature her POV if her story specifically was not important?

As for why she’s become one of my favorites, that’s a bit different. This is a bit personal, so forgive me for it, but I think it’s interesting insight. I had to get past this wounded inner child aspect of myself, for one. I was an ugly duckling. I grew up being mocked for being a chubby, socially awkward kid with a snaggle tooth and a lisp. I internalized the idea very early that in order to be loved and socially accepted, I must be beautiful. I have auburn hair and amber eyes. I also received this message that to be beautiful, I should be blonde and more importantly have blue/green eyes. Seeing how just about every example of beautiful women in media were blonde with light eyes, and how the vast majority of female protagonists were beautiful, I developed quite the complex about this. It started sending a message to me that these stories were not for me. The romance, the fantasy, everything these characters got was not and never would be for me because I wasn’t beautiful like them. I resented any female protagonist for which their beauty was a huge focal point because of a deep envy. I wished more than anything to be beautiful. Every birthday, every star, every dandelion. What I really wanted was love and social acceptance, but I was too young to understand that.

Then something weird happened as I grew up. I became beautiful. I don’t want to sound vain or self-congratulatory, but it’s relevant here. The vast majority of people now consider me to be extremely good-looking. This started around age 16. I got what I wished for. People started treating me differently. I got what I wished for. And it sucked. I’ll get back to that. But I did and still do feel like that little ugly duckling. I’m slowly healing, but it’s hard. I still felt this deep resentment and envy. It is starting to go away but comes up now and again. And as petty as it sounds, yes, part of me resented this character for being beautiful. Of course, I think every single female POV character is called pretty or beautiful aside from Brienne. Daenerys and Cersei are also considered to be extremely beautiful, but it’s not as relevant to Dany because the whole dragon thing takes more precedence and Cersei’s envy and vindictiveness are more prominent me (plus she’s an overt antagonist, and I don’t mind so much when the character is one of the bad guys, for some reason). But for Sansa, her beauty and grace seem to be major focal points in how other characters see her.

I said before that becoming beautiful sucked. I resented everyone around me for treating me differently because I was beautiful. And I realized that it does NOT offer me the guaranteed acceptance and love and safety that I believed it would as a child. Men will behave in different evil ways to both ugly and beautiful women. Being beautiful started to feel like this curse. It became a performance that I have to maintain because deep down I fear that beauty is all I have and/or that it’s the only reason anyone really values me. I developed an eating disorder about it. I got exactly what I wished for but not what I wanted.

Here’s how that’s relevant. I started drawing parallels and antiparallels between Sansa and Dany. I think it’s very interesting to compare the two but I seldom see that discussed unless it’s to pit them against one another. As I started to make these parallels I realized that many of the reasons I connect with Dany also apply to Sansa and started doing some self-analysis about why I didn’t connect with Sansa in the same way. I started to sort out the whole wounded inner child thing and realized it had been preventing me from acknowledging and appreciating any depth in Sansa’s character and really feeling for her. I realized that she too wished for something so very badly when she was a naive kid. Something she thought she wanted desperately. And she got it, and it was horrible. I found that I can now really emotionally connect with this character. Perhaps she too fears that her beauty and grace are the only reasons people like her. And I can definitely relate to the feeling of being sexualized and objectified by adults and peers alike. I know how it feels to have to smile and nod and lie to appease poisonous men. I really can connect with her emotionally in ways I couldn’t before because of my own personal hangups.

Finally, I just stopped caring about what other fans think. I have seen Sansa fans saying things I find objectionable, like proclaiming that Daenerys and Arya’s arcs are patriarchal or excusing the way Sansa treated Arya (although I don’t think their relationship is as cut and dry as “they simply don’t love eachother”). Plus there’s just a lot of infighting between Sansa fans and Dany and Arya fans and it made me keep my distance. I also am not a Jonsa fan and it seems many Sansa fans are in fact Jonsa fans. I used to hate the ship but was just being immature honestly. I’m neutral now and I think it’s interesting to read Jonsa metas because they present an entirely different way to interpret the story. It is fun for me to see what other people take away from the text. I was also holding myself back because I’ve seen Jonsas misconstrue the text and omit parts of passages and important context in ways that seem intentionally misleading, which really bothers me. But I realized I’m biased. We all have our own confirmation biases when reading the series and I’m sure other fans do the exact same thing. I was just noticing it more with Jonsa because it’s not a theory I subscribe to. But enjoying Sansa’s character does not mean I need to align myself with every single other Sansa fan, which seems obvious when said so plainly, but we often subconsciously develop this sense of group microidentities that we fear betraying.

This is all very specific to me as an individual of course but I had fun with all the introspection and think it’s an interesting case study about why a person may resent a specific character and why they might change their minds. Thanks for reading!

Question for everyone: if you see a post that you disagree with and want to write about in opposition but don’t want to get into drama or draw hate to OP, is it cowardly and wrong to post a screenshot with the OP censored? Because on one hand, it allows you to say your piece and it will help shield OP from vitriol. But on the other hand, it seems a bit underhanded and it also prevents any meaningful discussion with people who disagree. OP may be able to elaborate on their stance and one of you may change your mind and/or learn something.

This is something I’ve done and I’ve thought it was a good option for a few reasons. In some cases, the post has been offensive to me to the point that I don’t see much of a point in engaging directly. But in other cases, I’ve just wanted to shield OP and have honestly been afraid of just getting blocked instead of being able to discuss it. I’ve said a lot recently how I value following people who post metas I disagree with, and I’d like to be able to engage with them. If I reblog with a dissenting opinion and get blocked (which is something that did actually happen to me early on and the disagreement more or less boiled down to semantics), I lose that opportunity. Going through and engaging directly to disagree might seem like I’m picking fights.

But thinking about it… is it really a better option? It seems a little unfair to OP to lock them out of the conversion like that without giving them the chance to respond.

What do you guys think?

Can someone explain to me what exactly people are talking about when they talk about bnfs? I assume it means big name fans. I haven’t been around asoiaf tumblr long enough to know who these people are but just about everyone I follow seems to hold ire for them. Do they all have the same opinions? Are those opinions controversial? Is there some well-known drama? Just like. What’s the deal?

Truthfully I don’t blame people for interpreting Jon and by extension Arya as being less pale than their sibling because the line about Jon being dark where Robb was fair. At least in the US, when we use that word we’re referring to skin tone more often than hair. Especially because auburn hair is not a fair color. That said I don’t really think GRRM was referring to skin tone especially given some of the descriptions of Arya, assuming that Arya and Jon are of the same complexion and I also don’t think GRRM was actually thinking of auburn when he described the Stark-Tullys as having auburn hair. I don’t think it’s inherently a bad thing to draw Ned, Jon, and Arya with slightly darker skin but assuming that Ned is in fact not as pale as Cat, given the way genetics work it is very unlikely that Arya would be the only one of Ned’s kids who inherited his skin tone with every other kid having fairer skin and auburn hair. It’s more likely that there is variation amongst all the kids on a spectrum. Human pigmentation is not a strict a or b thing. Maybe Robb is very pale but that doesn’t necessitate that Sansa, Bran, and Rickon are too. Like if your art style is more simple and you just want Ned, Arya, and Jon to be a few shades darker than the others to really hit home their resemblance in contrast to Cat, Robb, Sansa, Bran, and Rickon, I think it’s probably fine but if you’re getting to the point where NJA look like an entirely different race than CRSBR with absolutely no intermediates then yeah I think you should be reflecting on that.

But at the same time if you’re making posts about Arya having snow white skin and emphasizing this factor describing her beauty and tagging it with “the Starks are white” then I also think there is a big problem there

The absolute DEATH GRIP that La Belle Dame sans Merci has on the asoiaf fandom is SO FUNNY like I’ve seen it recreated with basically every m/f ship there is like this painting has everyone in a chokehold

i saw a gifset of every Targaryen princess. Like from Fiery Rhaena to Daenerys. They even had Helaena and Jaehaera (rare I know). Also without mentioning Shiera Seastar even though she wasn't a princess but—

and it did not had Rhaenys.

You know Little Rhaenys of Three who had Balerion? The Only Targaryen Princess with no valyrian features? Yes it did not had her even though she was a princess from both her mother and father's side. The Princess who was brutally murdered for her father and grandfather's crime.

I saw it well back in 2021 I suppose and I didn't know how to comment there or if it would be alright to point it out because if the OP remembered Aelora, Daenora, Rhae, Daella....

Or if they were plain racist towards Dorne as many Targ purists... 😕

I got remembered of it because in Daenora Targaryen tags I also saw another post in which every Valyrian couple was beautifully drawn but they had no-

Helaena x Aegon ii

Rhaenyra x Laenor

Rhaenys x Corlys

Laena x Daemon

Jaehaera x Aegon iii

Baela x Alyn

I think maybe for them they weren't valyrian/white enough. (It had Dany x Jon though...). Or maybe they missed them. Or not.

but it isn't surprising a bit, because it always has to be a white couple with God complex as something main or centre in a story. Greens aren't even considered as Targs —despite everyone of them being dragonriders— by many Targ stans which is infuriating. Elia and her children too as they stand between rhaelya. 🤷

The amount of mental gymnastics and willful ingnorance that goes into coming up with arguments for TG and against Rhaenyra is fucking ridiculous. They really will do anything to support their own internalized misogyny lmao

The whole "Targaryens are colonizers" take is so frustrating in more than one way. First off: it's blatantly wrong. Colonialism is the taking of someone else's land in the name of your kingdom and exploiting the land and people for resources. A necessary part of this is establishing a colony, which usually goes hand in hand with wiping out or severely reducing the population of the natives. The Targaryens didn't do this.

They began their time in Westeros as refugees who fled to a small Valyrian outpost off the main continent. They basically no influence or interest in Westerosi politics. This changed with Aegon, who led a conquest of Westeros, not for Valyria, for his house. Because the Targaryens lived in Westeros for over a century, they became just as Westerosi as the Andals. So, Aegon's conquest was not the establishment of a colony in the name of a foreign power, Aegon was from Westeros, his family had lived in Westeros for generations. Yes, the Targaryens kept the Valyrian traditions, the Andals and First Men also kept their traditions when they came to Westeros.

My second reason is that by painting the Targaryens as colonizers, people are erasing the true natives of Westeros, the Children of the Forest. The First Men were not the first inhabitants of Westeros, something people always insist on for some reason. The Children of the Forest lived in Westeros long before the Dawn Age, before any humans came to Westeros (that's fucking why the First Men are called that, they were the first humans in Westeros). They suffered huge massacres during the wars with the First Men and were forced into restricted areas to live after the treaties, then were forced further and further off their land until they were completely gone from the Seven Kingdoms. Sound familiar? This is almost exactly what happened when colonies were established in the real world. The name "Children of the Forest" literally was one of the names used to refer to the American Indigenous peoples. The First Men invaded and had reinforcements and resources sent to them from their original kingdom until the CoF destroyed the land bridge. Erasing the CoF destroys a huge part of the story Martin is trying to tell.

Finally, my third reason, it's a symptom of people misusing and misunderstanding the word colonialism. Words have power, but people seem to enjoy minimizing words like this by constantly using them when they aren't appropriate. The ASOIAF fandom is just a small example of a culture-wide issue. When people constantly use words like colonialism it loses its true impact, so when actual examples exist, people don't see it or nothing is done. I'm not saying it's the antis faults, I'm just saying it's a small symptom of a bigger issue.

I find it interesting that Targaryen antis will go on and on about protecting the cultures of the Andals, First Men, Dornish, and the Ghiscari while condemning and wanting to eradicate Valyrian traditions.

Valyrian customs, like incest, are constantly condemned and hated, meanwhile any incest the other houses engage in on a regular basis are ignored or excused. Joanna Lannister is Tywin's cousin, the Starks only married other Northern lords (meaning a very small gene pool to choose from), and uncle-niece marriages were common.

Antis also love to ignore a crucial fact about the Targaryens. They are one of the last Valyrian houses and the last house of dragonlords. Houses Velaryon and Celtigar are the only other Valyrian houses still in existence, and House Celtigar has long since lost their connection to their Valyrian roots. There's a reason why the Velaryons are the house the Targaryens marry with the most. It has nothing to do with "blood purity", it's about preserving their dying culture.

The Valyrian culture is basically dead by the time of the the Conquest, even more so in ASOIAF. The Valyrian religion is only practiced in Volantis by some aristocrats, Lys and Volantis are the only places where the Valyrian people still survive other than the Targaryens and Velaryons. As time goes on, the Targaryen and Velaryon blood becomes more and more mixed with that of the Andals and First Men, one day, they will be like the Celtigars, only having their roots be Valyrian.

Valyrian magic was once the most powerful in the world, able to even tame dragons. However, after the Doom, the secrets of their magic were lost. This is why Valyrian steel, glass candles, and their horns are so rare and valuable. The Freehold was once the center of magic in the world, now that has moved to Asshai and magic is slowly dying out.

Therefore, it makes sense that the Targaryens seek to protect their culture in what ways they can. Aegon the Conqueror sacrificed many of their traditions to appease the Westerosi lords and others were abandoned over time.

Now, it does make sense to not approve of some Valyrian traditions, like incest, blood magic, and slavery. However, using these as excuses to hate the Targaryens while supporting other cultures who have similar or identical traditions is just hypocritical. Condemning the Valyrians for slavery while saying Dany leading a fight against Ghiscari slavers is wrong is not a real argument against Valyria. Saying Targaryen incest is wrong makes sense if you hold everyone else to the same modern standards. Condemning the Targaryen and/or Valyrian conquests is fine, but then you'd have to condemn the Starks' conquest of the North or the Andals invasion.

Basically, if you have issues with Valyrian culture/traditions that makes sense, but condemning them while supporting other cultures that practice the same things you condemn Valyrians for is just hypocritical.

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.

people in this fandom are so bitter about a possible targaryen restoration? you can't post a harmless post saying this is what you want and you already receive rude comments

Certain people in this fandom just hate Targaryens for no reason lmao. They hate Dany for not immediately being a perfect queen who doesn't sit there and kiss the asses of the men around her. They hate Rhaenyra for not bowing to her incompetent rapist brother and having sexual autonomy.

The only Targaryens they like are the greens who just plain suck and represent everything they claim to hate about the Targaryens. So clearly they don't hate House Targaryen because of moral reasons. It's because they are a powerful and influential house, who are changing the face of planetos even after the house's apparent fall.

The antis are just bitter that the Targaryens are great and clearly loved by GRRM. Hope they can get over it lmao

not TG stans saying that the influence of the faith of the seven would be good for the iron throne because the practice of incest would end these stans truly believe that the hightowers would be the salvation of house targaryen

Do they realize that cousin incest is still allowed by the Faith? And do they realize that first cousin incest still counts as incest? I also don't think they realize that the Faith is meant to be a criticism of the real world Catholic Church.

The Faith believe that being gay, having premarital sex, being a non-conforming woman, following another religion, and magic are sins and in some cases are punishable by death. The Faith controlling Westeros will not help it or the people in any way.

Throughout F&B we see Martin critize the Faith and its septons. They are corrupt and power hungry, who don't actually care about the people (the majority of the septons anyway).

Now I'm not saying that everyone who follows the Faith is evil or bad. I'm not even saying the Faith is all bad, after all they believe slavery is an abomination (which it is). What I'm saying is that it taking over the realm will not be a good thing. Let's not forget that they tried to outlaw worship of the Old Gods and the Drowned God, so there'd be war if the Faith controlled the throne.

Thr Hightower stans that infect this fandom just believe that because the Faith is closely associated with the Hightowers, it must be good because their favs are just perfect. It's a massive plus that the Faith militant marched against the Targaryens at one point. But they forget that the Faith is disliked by the Starks and most of the North (these stans usually are also Stark stans).

The Faith is not going to "fix" the realm or the Targaryens, and wanting the Targaryens to conform to it is asking them to abandon what's left of their heritage. Westeros doesn't need to become a theocracy or make the Faith it's state religion, that goes for all the other religions of ASOIAF. GRRM is an atheist, he isn't going to turn his books into propaganda for a fictional Catholic church. It takes a lot of willful ingnorance and lack of media comprehension to think the Faith will fix anything.

https://www.tumblr.com/radicalsansa/739060101195907072/if-youre-looking-at-hotd-through-a-medival

😨

How exactly does GRRM want us to look through a "medieval lens"? Does he want us to look through a medieval lens when we're watching underage girls be married off and suffering marital rape? Does he want us to look through a medieval lens when soldiers rape and pillage innocent smallfolk? Does he want us to look through a medieval lens when tyrannical kings are supported just because they took the throne?

GRRM's books may take place in a medieval-esque world, but that doesn't mean he wants the audience to support the atrocities normalized by a medieval society. He uses his setting to criticize the actions of the medieval world.

He uses Daenerys' campaign against slavery to show the monstrosity of the slavers and those who stand by allowing it. He uses Sansa's treatment by Joffrey to show the hypocrisy of the order of knighthood and medieval chivalry. He uses Jon's treatment in Winterfell to show the harm of bastardphobia. He uses Arya's time among the smallfolk to show how the petty wars of lords impacts the people. He uses Brienne's life to show the damage the patriarchy does to non-conforming women. He uses Rhaenyra's story to show the far-reaching harm to the world the patriarchy causes. He uses Barristan Selmy and Jaime Lannister to show the dangers of blind loyalty to a king.

We the audience are not supposed to justify a character's actions just because it was normal for the time. That's like justifying Thomas Jefferson's owning of slaves because it was the norm for rich men in Colonial America. We are supposed to be horrified with the world's treatment of people who don't conform to it. We are supposed to feel angry at the normalized and rampant injustice. We are supposed to acknowledge that, while the books (much like the world) are filled with people who do the wrong thing, the characters are not all equally bad.

This post was deleted since I started writing this a few days ago (so sorry it took me so long to finish this answer), but the gist of it is that TG is right because of the medieval standards of Westerosi society. In the case of Rhaenyra, like I said earlier, GRRM uses to Dance to show the damage of the patriarchy and male primogeniture. The dragons are wiped out because of TG's greed and sexism. The realm suffers thousands of deaths because the greens couldn't stand a woman, a non-conforming woman no less, to take the throne. GRRM doesn't want us to just nod along and say, "oh that's fair, after all it is normal for the time :)". No, we are supposed to see the injustice of the situation and the harm that injustice causes.

GRRM and the Medieval Setting (Part One - Daenerys)

ASOIAF, like most high fantasy, takes place in a medieval-esque world. There's medieval aesthetic, technology, and sensibilities. These sensibilities in ASOIAF include misogyny, racism/xenophobia, classism, and the allowance of slavery. These things are objectively bad, however, the fandom is obsessed with trying to justify them. Their argument is that these things aren't actually bad in ASOIAF because that's just how things were in the Medieval period and they're cultural norms. This is far from what GRRM is trying to communicate.

GRRM uses most of his pov characters to criticize the medieval sensibilities and ideas. I'm not going to go into every character, but I will do a few of the main ones in a series. This post is going to focus on Daenerys.

Daenerys' primary arc at this point in the books is her campaign against slavery and ruling Meereen. Obviously, the main issue GRRM condemns in her chapters is the existence of slavery. From Dany's first chapter, we are introduced to the Essosi slave trade from the perspective of someone being sold.

Throughout AGOT, the horrors of slavery are introduced. Pentos keeps their slaves thinly disguised at servants despite their agreement with Braavos, Dany is raped routinely by Drogo, the Dosh Khaleen and Khalasars use enslaved eunuchs as servants and healers, Khalasars raid villages and enslave their people, Drogo's Khalasar rape the Lhazareen women, and Eroeh is gang raped and murdered by Khal Jhaqo and his bloodriders. While ACOK doesn't make a point of showing the horror of slavery, in ASOS and ADWD Dany devotes herself to ending the slave trade in Slaver's Bay, foregoing her original goal of the IT.

GRRM fills Dany's chapters with horrific descriptions of the effects of the Essosi slave trade. He portrays the slavers as cruel and "cartoonishly evil". Despite the criticisms of certain fans who routinely defend Essosi slavers, these portrayals are on purpose.

GRRM does have issues with writing characters of color (many of the Dothraki) as stereotypes who don't have much do differentiate them from each other. However, this doesn't actually apply to the antagonists of Dany's story. Kraznys mo Nakloz, Hizdahr zo Loraq, Galazza Galare, Grazdan mo Eraz, and the other slavers are meant to show just how abominable slavery as an institution is. Their cruelty and inhumanity is a conscious choice to reflect the real world people who did the monstrous things that inspired GRRM's version of slavery.

Moving on from slavery, Dany's arc also addresses the misogyny inherit to the Medieval era. Dany is mocked, underestimated, undermined, and devalued because of her gender. She suffers marital rape and a traumatic miscarriage. Each of these things are portrayed as the injustices they are.

Dany is demeaned by her adversaries not just because of her gender but also because she's a non-conforming woman. The slavers spread rumors of her being a monstrous demon who's driven by her lust for sex and power. She's condemned for being a woman who refused to remain in the position society assigned to her.

GRRM shows the common misogynistic beliefs and methods of Medieval men used to suppress women of the time. He also shows that it's his antagonists who employ the smear tactics and refuse to alter their worldviews because of Dany's gender.

GRRM took the femininity that Dany is demeaned for and turned it into symbols of her strength. She's the Mother of Dragons, Mhysa, the Dragon Queen, Khaleesi, Aegon the Conqueror with Teats.

GRRM touches on racism and xenophobia in Dany's chapters. The Dothraki and other Essosi people are viewed and savages and less important by the Westerosi lords. The Lhazareen are demeaned by the Dothraki and Ghiscari. The Qartheen view themselves as superior to everyone around them.

GRRM gives a unique perspective to Dany concerning regional and cultural divides. Dany is a refugee and an exile who has never known a true home. She's travelled throughout many cities of Essos, come into contact with many different cultures, and has learned to appreciate them.

The Ghiscari culture is the one Dany has the most complicated relationship with, but that's purely because of slavery and her constant struggles with the slavers class. She appreciates the Ghiscari people, and embraces their culture, just as she does with every culture she lives in.

GRRM uses Dany and her openness to show how every society has its flaws and its goodness. Just like his characters, the cultures he's created are flawed and very human. Ultimately, GRRM likes the thought of unity between nations, this is reflected in his writing of Dany's chapters.

Finally, GRRM addresses the classism which is intrinsically tied to feudalism. This is already sort of addressed through the slavery section, but he does also go into the class divide outside of this. First off, through Dany's early life, he examines how, without wealth and familial ties, she and children like her are left defenseless and in poverty.

He shows how it's the lower classes and impoverished people who are most often enslaved. The Meerenese nobles are able to afford feasts while the lower classes starve during the siege of Meereen. The Free Cities are ruled by the wealthy slave masters.

Dany, as I've said many times, was raised in poverty, this informs the way she treats her people. GRRM makes a point to show how everyone, from Dany's Dothraki handmaids to the Ghiscari nobles are allowed to speak in Dany's council meetings. She sits for hours to listen to the cases brought before her by all her subjects, the lowborn, the freedmen, and the nobles. She listens to them and takes their opinions and best interests into consideration.

This is something GRRM has gone out of his way to show in his books. His books are full of lords and kings ignoring the smallfolk and using them as disposable pawns. Dany and a few other characters are specifically written to view the common people as significant. This is meant to be significant.

Dany's story is not meant to be read just as someone conquering for power or a spoiled girl who doesn't care about the economies she disrupting. GOT sent the message that Dany is wrong for going against the status quo and many in the fandom seem to just accept this. Just because GRRM wrote a story set in a world with medieval values doesn't mean we should accept the norm of that world as right. He chose to write characters who are outsiders to criticize the world that ostracized them.

Dany's story is about equality, social change, and freedom. The slavers aren't in the right just because their cultures normalize slavery. The men aren't more worthy than Dany and other women just because Westeros and Essos are misogynistic. It's not ok to be racist or xenophobic towards other cultures just because most cities/regions in Planetos have a superiority complex. Classism isn't acceptable just because the nobility think they're superior because of blood or money.

The ASOIAF fandom is so funny about discourse; both in topics and reactions. The other main fandom I frequent on Tumblr is Tolkien, and the difference is remarkable.

For instance, in the story of the Fall of Numenor, there's a story about the usurpation of a woman that leads to tragedy. I'm talking, of course, about Tar-Míriel. She was the rightful queen of Numenor, but was usurped by her cousin Ar-Pharazôn, who caused the destruction of Numenor.

There is not a single person in the Tolken fandom who argues that Ar-Pharazôn was in the right, was actually a good person, or that Tar-Míriel deserved to be usurped. Granted, the story isn't actually the same as that of the Dance, but the bare bones are pretty similar.

Tar-Míriel isn't a morally gray character like Rhaenyra, in fact we know very little about her, but the parts we do know are good. However, both Rhaenyra and Tar-Míriel were declared their fathers' heirs despite the existence of close male relatives. They were both usurped and ultimately killed (Míriel indirectly) by a male relative.

Ar-Pharazôn and Aegon II are both written as almost cartoonishly evil. They both were horrible rulers and warmongers. Their reigns caused massive tragedies; Aegon II and his faction caused the deaths of the dragons and Ar-Pharazôn's actions caused Iluvatar to destroy Numenor.

Now, I'm not saying that these two stories are meant to be connected or paralleled, they simple capture a similar story pattern rooted in history. My point is that the ASOIAF fandom has a major issue.

The greens are not secretly heroes, good people, or morally superior to the blacks in any way, shape, or form. The obsession of the ASOIAF fandom to turn them into more "sympathetic" characters is ridiculous. Fandoms like the Tolkien one are able to embrace a character being a villain without trying to turn them into a hero.

It's so frustrating because this obsession with making the greens into protagonists damages fandom discourse. It's turned the Dance into a cheap "choose your team" issue, rather than a story of the damage of misogyny, the patriarchy, and warring lords. The arguments over which team is right is absurd and creates a space were misogyny is fostered and encouraged (even some TB fans)

I know, a majority of my posts are complaining about TG and their stans, so I'm guilty of perpetuating the cycle. But there's a difference between analysis of a character and arguing with people's rotten takes and just reducing the story to team discourse; I try my best to avoid the latter.

I'm sure a large part of this issue can be traced to HOTD, but I think it's indicative of deeper problem in the fandom. People reduce the issues in the main books to "who's gonna take the throne" rather than actually addressing things. They're so comfortable spouting misogyny in regards to Daenerys and Arya. The ASOIAF fandom has deeper issues that are being exacerbated by the writing decisions of HOTD and, before that, GOT.

Mad Queen Misogyny

All the mad queen Dany takes, from both D&D and the audience, are just plain misogyny. They are literally just repeats of common misogynistic ideas. D&D have given a few reasons for why they wrote the mad queen ending for Dany, and all of them are the same old misogynistic tropes of fantasy and mythology.

The Mad Queen:

I'm going to start this off by going into how the mad queen trope itself is rooted in misogyny. This is one of the oldest tropes in fantasy/fairytales. Whether it's Snow White's evil step mother or the Queen of Hearts, literature is riddled with mad queens.

The idea of the mad queen is informed by the desires of men to keep women out of power. Yes there are historical women who were horrible people and unstable when in power. However, those examples are not enough to justify the amount of times the trope occurs, especially since some of the examples occur after many stories have already been written (ie, Mary I and medieval fairytales). These fictional women were written as cautionary tales of what happens when a woman is placed in power.

By writing the mad queen Dany arc in GOT, D&D are perpetuating an old trope rather than "subverting" anything as they claim. The most powerful woman in the world turning out to be a war mongering and mass murdering tyrant isn't subversive in any way. The only reason it was surprising was because it came out of nowhere narratively.

ASOIAF fans who constantly try to justify this turn for Dany's book character are attempting to do the same thing D&D did. They want to employ an ancient trope to justify their dislike for her in name of being "subversive".

The Violent Woman:

A trope that stretches back all the way to the Ancient Greeks is that of the angry, homicidal woman in power. From Hera to Medea, the myths are full of women who commit atrocities simply because of anger. This trope isn't just about avenging a slight or retribution on the guilty; it's about a woman taking out her anger on innocent parties.

Daenerys has fallen into the role of the avenger many times throughout both the show and and book. She killed Mirri Maz Duur for the murder of her son and husband. She killed the Undying for attempting to trap/kill her. She kills Kraznys mo Nakloz and many other slavers for the atrocities they commit constantly on the people they enslaved.

In the show, she imprisoned Xaro Xhoan Daxos and Doreah in a vault for killing Irri and helping the warlocks steal her children. She killed the Khals who threatened to rape her. She kills the Tarleys for rebelling against the Tyrells, thus getting them killed, and refusing to bend the knee.

Every time Dany killed up until season eight, it was purely because those she killed harmed her or her allies/children. That is why none of her past kills justify her burning KL. The people of KL did nothing to her; it's not an established part of her character to harm innocents out of anger. She even outright condemns the killing of innocents in earlier seasons.

The inconsistencies show how D&D chose to blatantly ignore the complexities of Dany's character in favor of a sexist trope. They perpetuated the idea that a woman in power who is angered will ultimately commit injustice and atrocities.

Dany antis in the ASOIAF fandom are no different from D&D. A common argument used by Dany and Targaryen antis is that they are bound to be corrupt and tyrannical because they have dragons. Essentially saying that Dany was doomed to be the villain the moment she hatched her children.

They point to her dragons' existence and her conquest in Essos as reasons for her "villain arc", despite the fact that none of her actions reflect the things they claim. Dany is simply being condemned for being a woman with power; it's expected of her to be a tyrant for those reasons alone.

The Woman Scorned:

This reasoning given by D&D in a behind the episode interview is probably the excuse that I hate the most. They said that one of the reasons for Dany's descent into madness was because Jon Snow refused to kiss her back once he found out they were aunt and nephew. This is an insanely misogynistic trope.

Used time and again by writers (mostly male), this trope is about a woman who becomes an antagonist due to rejection, unrequited love, or betrayal from a lover. In the case of Dany and GOT, it's Jon refusing to continue their romantic relationship.

For some reason, this is seen as a breaking point for Dany. A woman who has endured poverty, homelessness, sexual slavery, a traumatic miscarriage and death of a spouse/protector, and the stresses of war was broken by a man refusing to kiss her. Doesn't that sound fucking stupid? Well that's because it is.

Dany has never felt entitled to people's love (with the exception of shitty writing from D&D) let alone someone's sexual/romantic reciprocation. It's out of character and flat out insulting to women to believe that is enough to make Dany into a mass murdering tyrant.

Once again, there are members of the fandom who espouse this reasoning into their own theories and metas. Jonsas especially are guilty of this; some claiming that Jon's rejection of Dany in favor of Sansa will be a catalyst for the "mad queen".

An offshoot of this thinking, is the idea that Dany went/will go mad because she was rejected by the realm.

In the show, the Northmen are dismissive or outright hostile to Dany when she arrives (even after she saves them). Due to this rejection by the Westerosi people, Dany decides "let it be fear" and chooses to burn KL to the ground.

Once again, this idea isn't grounded in her past actions at all. Dany has always known she needs to earn people's love and respect as a ruler, why should she change her mind the moment she steps onto Westerosi soil? The answer is simple: she's a woman, so she can't possibly be able to deal with rejection.

Fans theorize constantly that Dany is going to go mad and destroy KL and Westeros because the people will definitely reject her in favor of Young Griff/Jon Snow/any other king they can think of. This theory is simply clinging to misogynistic ideas about women and it's disgusting in every iteration (it also dismisses the fact that there are people in Westeros excited about the idea of Dany and her dragons in the books but that's a different post).

The Woman Bereft:

This argument is probably the least outright in its misogyny. The idea that a woman who has lost everything will lose her mind isn't a new one and it can be played in a non-sexist way. However, GOT played it completely in the sexist roots of the trope.

Throughout seasons seven and eight, Dany loses basically everything. All but one of her children, her closest advisor and best friend Missandei, Ser Jorah, a massive chunk of her army, her other advisors, most of her allies, and is rejected by Westeros and Jon. That's a lot of loss to endure.

However, Dany has endured severe loss before and never reacted by murdering a city full of innocents. Again, this decision and descent isn't backed up by anything else in her storyline.

The sexism of this idea, that loss produces mad women, is that it's rarely applied to men in the same situations. For example: Tyrion lost everything he cared about, yet he's never written by D&D to be in danger of becoming a mass murderer. He even outright says he wishes he'd poisoned the whole court, but is never portrayed as a mad man by D&D or fans.

Dany is expected to go insane after enduring loss because she's a woman. She's perceived as being fundamentally weaker, mentally as well as physically, so she must be more vulnerable to madness than the male characters.

The Foreign Seductress:

The idea of the foreign seductress is a xenophobic and racist stereotype. For Dany, her antis use the instances of her exercising sexual autonomy and her life in Essos as fodder for this disparaging trope.

In the books and the show, Dany pursues sexual and romantic relationships outside of marriage. This is something that doesn't fall in line with the medieval setting of the world. In Westeros and Essos, it's common for men to do that, but not women, due to systematic misogyny. Because of this, Dany's antis often feel free to argue that because she doesn't act "pure", she is wrong and evil. Dany's bound to become a villain because she isn't a chaste and "good" woman.

In the same way, Dany is painted as wrong for wanting to take her family's throne purely because she wasn't raised in Westeros. She's perceived as a foreign invader by both her antis and D&D.

D&D wrote many scenes of outright xenophobia from the Northmen, Sansa, and Arya towards Dany and her forces without ever condemning those ideas. In fact, they justify them by writing the mad queen ending. The fact that Dany isn't "one of them" is used as an excuse for her descent.

Dany antis also employ this rhetoric, especially when people compare Dany's conquest for the IT to the Starks' desire to retake Winterfell. It's good for the Starks to want to retake their throne because they were raised in Winterfell, but Dany has no right to her ancestral home because she wasn't raised in Westeros.

However, this idea is never applied to Young Griff, who was also not raised in Westeros. Despite this, people will talk about how excited they are for his story and how sad it is that he's totally going to be murdered by his evil aunt. Once again a double standard is applied to Dany.

All this is because Dany is a woman who refuses to conform to patriarchal standards and was raised in a foreign country.

Never Good Enough:

Dany antis and D&D thrive on applying a different set of standards to Dany than other characters. They do this an a way that's reminiscent of the double standards set for women even today.

No matter what Dany does, it's never good enough for them. She dealt with Viserys and his death in the wrong way. She didn't protect her people in the right way. She tried to abolish slavery in the wrong way. She saved the goddamn world wrong. Like nothing Dany does is right in their eyes.

In their minds, Dany should've died in AGOT being a perfectly passive woman. She refused to submit to those (men) around her, and for that they punish her.

She's wrong for fighting the slavers, she's wrong for trying to avenge murdered children, she's evil for killing to protect herself. D&D used each of her actions throughout the show that they seemed too aggressive as justification for what they wrote. Dany's antis do the exact same thing in their theories.

The mad queen Dany theory is rooted completely in misogyny. It has no true justification in the narrative and every argument conjured up is just as sexist as the trope they want to perpetuate.

People who stan minor characters can be some of the most annoying groups ever. Because they're not just enjoying a character, or even stanning a character who doesn't have a lot of relevance, they're pissed off that the main characters are more important in the story.

Last week, I answered an ask from a Nettles stans who was saying the reason Nettles isn't as popular as Lyanna, Brienne or Arya is because she's not white. One thing I didn't talk about in my response to that was how unrealistic of an expectation it is for Nettles to be as popular as characters like the women they mentioned.

Nettles is a minor player in the story of the Dance; she's not unimportant, but she's also not one of the main characters. On top of that, Nettles doesn't do anything after Daemon's death, she disappears for the rest of F&B, unlike characters like Baela and Rhaena. As for the main series, Nettles isn't even mentioned once.

So how does it make sense to complain about how she isn't as popular as characters who are actually in the main series? Arya and Brienne are both pov characters; Arya is also one of the main five and one of GRRM's favorite characters. Lyanna may not have any pov chapters, what with being dead by the events of ASOIAF, but she permeates the narrative and her past actions still affect the plot.

Lyanna, Brienne, and Arya are very popular characters because we interact with them a lot in the books. They have established personalities, we the readers know them in a way we simply don't know characters like Nettles.

Now I'm not saying it's wrong or bad to like side characters, even ones we don't know a lot about. Shit, I love Nettles, she's an interesting and exciting character. But the problem arises when people act like their character more deserving of interest just because you like them.

No matter what changes that could be made to Nettles without changing the story, she will still be a minor character in one section of F&B. It's not surprising that she's not as popular as characters who are well known and more impactful. Acting like it's a moral failing that Nettles isn't as popular as fucking ridiculous.

It's not just Nettles stans who do this, but they're the ones at the forefront of my mind. Basically: stop bitching about how your fav is a minor character with few established traits and therefore less popular than those who aren't minor.

Blood Purity and the ASOIAF Fandom

I find it very ironic how Targaryen antis scream about "blood purity" then turn around and support and play into blood purity themselves. Specifically I'm talking about Stark stans and stansas/jonsas.

The Starks canonically prefer to marry with Northern houses, in other words: other First Men. This tradition gives them a rather small gene pool, meaning that incest is pretty much a necessity for them to carry it on. Uncle-niece, aunt-nephew, and cousin weddings were all allowable, and cousin weddings were rather commonplace.

What all that means is that the Starks practice blood purity. Yes, it's different from how the Targaryens did it, but the only differences are that the Valyrians allowed brother-sister marriages and there are only two other Valyrian houses to marry. The Celtigars barely even count, due to how little Valyrian blood is left in them. Both the Starks and Targaryens did marry outside their preferred gene pools. However, that fact doesn't negate that they both practice blood purity.

Stark stans who condemn the Targaryens for marrying to preserve their Valyrian blood are hypocrites. The Starks prefer to marry other First Men and allow certain forms of close incest, if they had as few options as the Targaryens did, they would probably change their views on brother-sister marriages.

Stansas tend to follow the same patterns as Stark stans. They ignore Stark incest and talk about "super special Stark genes" in an almost cult-like fashion. Stansas will go on and on about how the Starks are very special and their (specifically Sansa's) blood is the key to saving the world. Now, there is magic blood in ASOIAF, and the Starks are the one of the families with this. However, the sheer hypocrisy of Stansas and Stark stans to embrace and cheer on this fact for the Starks while simultaneously despising the Targaryens for the same fact is interesting.

Jonsas, who are all stansas just to be clear, are probably the most hypocritical in this group. Jonsa shippers will espouse both anti-incest and anti-blood purity arguments, especially in regards to the Targaryens. However, at the same time, they will write posts about how the incest between Jon and Sansa wouldn't be wrong and how Stark blood is superior. Just like the Stark stans and stansas, they are unironically supporting Stark blood purity. All three of these groups will also write about how the Targaryen bloodline needs to be wiped out.

So basically: Stark stans, stansas, and jonsas all not only support Stark blood purity, but also the eradication of Valyrian blood in Westeros. The hypocrisy is riveting.