Patrick - yeah, I post links occasionally when I think it would be beneficial to spark conversation. The League doesn't want for traffic, nor do I somehow benefit from more traffic. But I do like to notify people, somehow, when I respond to them - especially at length.
There are only a couple of mothers in the book, though the theme does recur with Dany as a mother of sorts with her "children" the freed slaves and the dragons. So motherhood does loom large in the book.
I disagree that the mothers are all presented as somehow stupid or worse than the fathers, however. Catelyn is trying to protect her children and she fails, but so does Ned. There is nothing about him as a father that makes her as a mother seem deficient. They are simply human.
Cersei is a far more loving mother to her children than either Robert or Jaime. Ultimately she is also too ambitious and probably a tiny bit insane, but we see her become more fully human as the series goes on. I think Martin played her off as too much the villain early on, and he's working to fix that however slowly.
And Dany is not perfect, but she is far, far more morally grounded than any of the patriarchs she unseats in her doomed march east.
First off, we are not "constantly" being fed scenes of rape or rape with women's breasts being eaten or anything like that. There are several scenes of rape or threatened rape, or implied rape, but it is not nearly so graphic or constant as you make it out to be - not even close.
Second, there is sexual violence toward men. Tywin essentially rapes Tyrion by forcing him to participate in the gang-rape of Tysha. That's sexual violence right there toward a male character. There are other examples though I can't recall them off the top of my head.
The fact is, in war - even in war now - sexual violence toward women is a major force of intimidation and terrorism. That's what Martin is trying to present. It's not glorified. At all. Full stop. Sady could make a strong critique of how sex is handled - it's not particularly mature, for one thing. It's a bit pornographic at times. But the sexual violence is very real, and very disturbing.
If anything Martin is offering a very disturbing critique of feudalism and patriarchy. The problem is that Sady and other critics are not saying "He takes it too far" they're saying he's glorifying rape and violence against women. That is simply not true. It's a failed reading of the stories, and it seems more motivated by a distaste for fantasy than by anything present in the books themselves.
You must not have read the post very carefully. I said this strengthens the hands of the hawks, including neoconservatives that most hawkish tribe of them all. I didn't condemn Bush (who wasn't really a neocon anyways, only gullible) and I did wag my finger at Obama....so....
wardsmith - yes and no. Plenty of liberals were happy enough to go along with Iraq (at least at first). The dynamic is weird. There is a much more consistently hawkish contingent on the right. This contingent isn't about to criticize a president harshly for going along with their agenda simply because they happen to be a Democrat. They have other allies to do that for them, on other issues. Meanwhile the left has no similarly stalwart contingent of hawks (they deserted some time ago and became neoconservatives after all). The TNR crowd will go along with a war, maybe, and a few other bastions of liberal interventionists, if the POTUS is a Republican. But many liberals who were entirely happy to support Obama in Libya would have been up in arms had it been a president Bush or Perry in charge.
But really, who cares? I wasn't cheering along with Libya. Why do I care if the left does or does not depending on which party is in power. It's all to be expected and both sides are guilty of it on any variety of issues and policies.
From what I can tell, the rebels are just new strongmen. It's hard to get worked up and excited about new strongmen replacing old ones. Though, like I've said already, I'm glad to see Gaddafi toppled. I'm just deeply cynical that it will lead to a happy ending.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The international community is likely somewhat to blame in Gaddafi's rise to power and grip on power for so long. I'm glad to see him go, of course, but I find the entire thing yet another example of Americans and Europeans getting themselves involved in things that are none of their business.
Besides, the Libyans will almost certainly prop up new dictators to replace the old ones. Nothing in Libyan civil society makes me think that a functioning democratic system will emerge.
There is no difference. I'm just being repetitive.
When was a regime undone by the end of immigration restrictions? When have we ever truly seen the end to said restrictions? I'd say the opportunity to emigrate to the United States did quite a lot to end various strangle-holds on various peoples, however.
Ditto. As I say in my post, people try to "smear" him with the term. It's a pejorative. It's also clearly bullshit. Peaceful trade between nations is not isolationism. War is more isolationist than free and peaceful relations.
Mike - my apologies if I took you the wrong way. Your comment - including the refernce to punchy, etc. - seemed directed at me, and my embrace of this quote. If you did not mean it that way I was obviously mistaken.
Well that's largely what I was saying. I think the book could have been great...it just needed serious edits. Feast and Dance should not have expanded to so many different POV characters. It bogs the story down. Dance suffers from being bogged down too long outside of Westeros.
Tom, well...look I spent a lot of time defending conservatives and libertarians in previous threads. Oh, not all conservatives mind you, but conservatives and conservatism more broadly. I see this act as the act of rightwinger, yes, but a particular kind of rightwinger that is certainly not representative of most conservatives, and not even of most actual nationalists or even many racists for that matter. Most people are not mass-murderers.
Danny - "movement conservatism" can only really be understood in the American context. There is no "movement conservatism" in Europe. It is a distinctly different thing.
Stillwater - I'm not insisting anything. I think it certainly appears to be the actions of a white nationalist rightwinger, given what little we know of his Facebook writing, his membership in Nazi forums, his membership in a rightwing anti-Muslim party in Norway, etc. I'm not arguing with anyone that the guy isn't a conservative; I'm saying he's a particular breed of conservative. He's also likely somewhat insane (just as, I imagine, some of the Muslim terrorists we've encountered have been I'm sure).
I'm still not sure what everyone is arguing here. Are we to blame all conservatives for this? No, no more than we should blame all Muslims for Islamic radicalism. Should we look and see if his associations with radical groups or writing had an influence on him - I think so.
This is a good point, Will, and certainly there will be a scarcity and it will be determined not by demand for labor, not by markets at all, but rather by politicians acting on the will of the people. How best to allocate it? I'm not sure we can. Whatever the will of the people, it is not so great as the will of the demand. If there are jobs, people will come to fill them. We can build sandcastles against the tide, or silly border fences, but people will still come.
Thanks! Those are good points. I think that the nature of politics in the US is really to blame. Money plays a far greater role here, and there's tons of pressure on politicians to do the wrong thing or to act in their own self-interest by catering to special interest groups. In Canada or Finland you have much different political incentives at play and the union/management relationship is quite different.
So yes, this is not *because* of unions but rather because of the political situation we find ourselves in and that unions play a role in. The organizations themselves are fine until they start using their massive resources to lobby hard for bad policies. The collective bargaining for wages and work conditions - this seems reasonable enough to me.
And yes, I think reasonable people could come to an agreement on all of this fairly easily. If reasonable people were in charge.
Also, too, you may be right about unions wanting freedom to experiment with curriculum. On this and many other issues we are allies. I think of myself as an ally of teachers because I do want autonomy and creative freedom for teachers. But I oppose unions on charter schools where I think they are being unreasonable and using their powers for Evil.
Did I mention my dad was a teacher as were numerous other relatives? Did I mention my aunt was head of the Oregon state teachers union? I have substitute taught as well.
So get off your high horse.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Sexism in Fantasy”
Patrick - yeah, I post links occasionally when I think it would be beneficial to spark conversation. The League doesn't want for traffic, nor do I somehow benefit from more traffic. But I do like to notify people, somehow, when I respond to them - especially at length.
"
There are only a couple of mothers in the book, though the theme does recur with Dany as a mother of sorts with her "children" the freed slaves and the dragons. So motherhood does loom large in the book.
I disagree that the mothers are all presented as somehow stupid or worse than the fathers, however. Catelyn is trying to protect her children and she fails, but so does Ned. There is nothing about him as a father that makes her as a mother seem deficient. They are simply human.
Cersei is a far more loving mother to her children than either Robert or Jaime. Ultimately she is also too ambitious and probably a tiny bit insane, but we see her become more fully human as the series goes on. I think Martin played her off as too much the villain early on, and he's working to fix that however slowly.
And Dany is not perfect, but she is far, far more morally grounded than any of the patriarchs she unseats in her doomed march east.
"
First off, we are not "constantly" being fed scenes of rape or rape with women's breasts being eaten or anything like that. There are several scenes of rape or threatened rape, or implied rape, but it is not nearly so graphic or constant as you make it out to be - not even close.
Second, there is sexual violence toward men. Tywin essentially rapes Tyrion by forcing him to participate in the gang-rape of Tysha. That's sexual violence right there toward a male character. There are other examples though I can't recall them off the top of my head.
The fact is, in war - even in war now - sexual violence toward women is a major force of intimidation and terrorism. That's what Martin is trying to present. It's not glorified. At all. Full stop. Sady could make a strong critique of how sex is handled - it's not particularly mature, for one thing. It's a bit pornographic at times. But the sexual violence is very real, and very disturbing.
If anything Martin is offering a very disturbing critique of feudalism and patriarchy. The problem is that Sady and other critics are not saying "He takes it too far" they're saying he's glorifying rape and violence against women. That is simply not true. It's a failed reading of the stories, and it seems more motivated by a distaste for fantasy than by anything present in the books themselves.
"
1) It's an interesting topic to me.
2) I didn't realize what I was getting into. I plead ignorance.
On “Tripoli and the hawks”
You must not have read the post very carefully. I said this strengthens the hands of the hawks, including neoconservatives that most hawkish tribe of them all. I didn't condemn Bush (who wasn't really a neocon anyways, only gullible) and I did wag my finger at Obama....so....
"
wardsmith - yes and no. Plenty of liberals were happy enough to go along with Iraq (at least at first). The dynamic is weird. There is a much more consistently hawkish contingent on the right. This contingent isn't about to criticize a president harshly for going along with their agenda simply because they happen to be a Democrat. They have other allies to do that for them, on other issues. Meanwhile the left has no similarly stalwart contingent of hawks (they deserted some time ago and became neoconservatives after all). The TNR crowd will go along with a war, maybe, and a few other bastions of liberal interventionists, if the POTUS is a Republican. But many liberals who were entirely happy to support Obama in Libya would have been up in arms had it been a president Bush or Perry in charge.
But really, who cares? I wasn't cheering along with Libya. Why do I care if the left does or does not depending on which party is in power. It's all to be expected and both sides are guilty of it on any variety of issues and policies.
"
From what I can tell, the rebels are just new strongmen. It's hard to get worked up and excited about new strongmen replacing old ones. Though, like I've said already, I'm glad to see Gaddafi toppled. I'm just deeply cynical that it will lead to a happy ending.
"
Perhaps, perhaps not. The international community is likely somewhat to blame in Gaddafi's rise to power and grip on power for so long. I'm glad to see him go, of course, but I find the entire thing yet another example of Americans and Europeans getting themselves involved in things that are none of their business.
Besides, the Libyans will almost certainly prop up new dictators to replace the old ones. Nothing in Libyan civil society makes me think that a functioning democratic system will emerge.
"
Ain't it the truth? And maybe next we'll double down and elect Rick Perry!
"
There is no difference. I'm just being repetitive.
When was a regime undone by the end of immigration restrictions? When have we ever truly seen the end to said restrictions? I'd say the opportunity to emigrate to the United States did quite a lot to end various strangle-holds on various peoples, however.
On “Hawks to the left of me, hawks to the right…here I am…”
Ditto. As I say in my post, people try to "smear" him with the term. It's a pejorative. It's also clearly bullshit. Peaceful trade between nations is not isolationism. War is more isolationist than free and peaceful relations.
On “Individualism & Society”
Mike - my apologies if I took you the wrong way. Your comment - including the refernce to punchy, etc. - seemed directed at me, and my embrace of this quote. If you did not mean it that way I was obviously mistaken.
On “Review: A Dance with Dragons by George R. R. Martin”
Well that's largely what I was saying. I think the book could have been great...it just needed serious edits. Feast and Dance should not have expanded to so many different POV characters. It bogs the story down. Dance suffers from being bogged down too long outside of Westeros.
On “On Sesame Street and Gay Marriage”
My apologies if I misread you.
On “Saturday Jukebox”
This is great stuff. Thanks!
On “We are all neoliberals now”
I seem to recall some sweet deals for seniors, steel workers, and the oil industry during the W days.
On “Islam, Norway, and the backlash”
Tom, well...look I spent a lot of time defending conservatives and libertarians in previous threads. Oh, not all conservatives mind you, but conservatives and conservatism more broadly. I see this act as the act of rightwinger, yes, but a particular kind of rightwinger that is certainly not representative of most conservatives, and not even of most actual nationalists or even many racists for that matter. Most people are not mass-murderers.
"
Because I am Evil.
"
And why, pray tell, do you suppose I am relieved? Can you decipher that from my oh-so-clear post today?
On “Terror”
Danny - "movement conservatism" can only really be understood in the American context. There is no "movement conservatism" in Europe. It is a distinctly different thing.
"
Stillwater - I'm not insisting anything. I think it certainly appears to be the actions of a white nationalist rightwinger, given what little we know of his Facebook writing, his membership in Nazi forums, his membership in a rightwing anti-Muslim party in Norway, etc. I'm not arguing with anyone that the guy isn't a conservative; I'm saying he's a particular breed of conservative. He's also likely somewhat insane (just as, I imagine, some of the Muslim terrorists we've encountered have been I'm sure).
I'm still not sure what everyone is arguing here. Are we to blame all conservatives for this? No, no more than we should blame all Muslims for Islamic radicalism. Should we look and see if his associations with radical groups or writing had an influence on him - I think so.
On “Classical Liberalism in America”
I would prefer a two-tiered approach - major market reforms underscored by a single-payer option.
On “Immigration, Inequality and Pie”
This is a good point, Will, and certainly there will be a scarcity and it will be determined not by demand for labor, not by markets at all, but rather by politicians acting on the will of the people. How best to allocate it? I'm not sure we can. Whatever the will of the people, it is not so great as the will of the demand. If there are jobs, people will come to fill them. We can build sandcastles against the tide, or silly border fences, but people will still come.
On “The Limits of Knowledge in the Education Debate”
Thanks! Those are good points. I think that the nature of politics in the US is really to blame. Money plays a far greater role here, and there's tons of pressure on politicians to do the wrong thing or to act in their own self-interest by catering to special interest groups. In Canada or Finland you have much different political incentives at play and the union/management relationship is quite different.
So yes, this is not *because* of unions but rather because of the political situation we find ourselves in and that unions play a role in. The organizations themselves are fine until they start using their massive resources to lobby hard for bad policies. The collective bargaining for wages and work conditions - this seems reasonable enough to me.
And yes, I think reasonable people could come to an agreement on all of this fairly easily. If reasonable people were in charge.
Also, too, you may be right about unions wanting freedom to experiment with curriculum. On this and many other issues we are allies. I think of myself as an ally of teachers because I do want autonomy and creative freedom for teachers. But I oppose unions on charter schools where I think they are being unreasonable and using their powers for Evil.
"
Did I mention my dad was a teacher as were numerous other relatives? Did I mention my aunt was head of the Oregon state teachers union? I have substitute taught as well.
So get off your high horse.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.