There Is An Enduring Sense In The Fandom That If You Cannot Structurally Change The Entire Or Major Parts

There is an enduring sense in the fandom that if you cannot structurally change the entire or major parts of an oppressive status quo, it's somehow better that one does absolutely nothing. Bc you're "messing up the stability of an already stable social order, which proved itself to be the best or most reliable bc it's endured for so long".

And I despise it. Because it essentially means that any effort except a huge, topsy-turvy one where the whole system gets upended or severely so doesn't matter. (At the very least those that don't seem like it.)

It's a perfect partner to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. & people use it not just against Rhaenyra but Dany, Rhaenys, & Alysanne!!! Any Targ woman, really. Aegon V, if one mentions his laws. Ironic, bc Jaehaerys had progressive laws for peasants ONLY bc of Alysanne, but it's obvious why they prefer the female-heir denying Jaehaerys over Aegon V!!!

Coupled with this sense, some say that these women are totally complicit in those systems bc use they happen to be born into royalty or aristocracy, actively use their privileges at times for their own ends instead of ALWAYS to create or influence others for groundbreaking policies & laws, or manage to just escape certain abuses other women face bc they were reserved for the specific task of having children for their male spouses.

Daenerys was a bridal slave, for example. She doesn't face SA from random men every other night, but that doesn't stop the risk of her facing that fate if she were to ever fall out of her husband-owner, Drogo, favor. That doesn't stop her haters from arguing that she should have done more for Mirri & those Lhazareen women, that she even profits from slave labor when she clearly is allocating and directing funds from taxes to the city of Meereen! From ignoring how all those she freed are not still slaves, that the slave masters time and time again have said, point blank, that she is a danger to their enterprise CONTINENT-WIDE!!! She makes mistakes and the biggest one compromising too much with the slave owners of Meereen, yeah, bc she is in the beginning of her leadership journey, and still she manages to inspire loyalty, faith, and hope in many of her followers and she also still manages to keep most people alive w/o actually giving all the way in and that terrifies the slaveowners! For good reason. Read the last few pages of the last book and tell me that she won't come for their necks, either literally or figuratively idc. She's obviously not fucking up so bad or has totally failed in her role as a protector, and she will make mistakes as other leaders before her and after her will! Why this level of negative & bad faith scrutiny?!

And let's go to Rhaenys the Conqueror. She created the rule of thumb & the rule of six, where no man could legally beat their wives to death when she decreed that the rod could not be thicker than the husband's thumb and he could not whack her more than 7 times. Some argue why didn't she outlaw wife-beating entirely if she and her siblings conquered Westeros. First of all, these are the very same people who bleat abt how the Targaryens destroyed and colonized Andal culture without bothering to offer material evidence of such. If Rhaenys & her siblings actually have "colonized" the Andal-FM lords, & it was Andal custom for men to beat their wives indiscriminately…then the Targs couldn't have actually destroyed any part of Andal "culture" and replaced it entirely with Valyrian ones where seemingly men could not beat their wives at all! If you can even consider this "destroying culture", as I'm sure a few would argue. If anything, this was a cultural compromise, and it obviously functioned and was intended as a form of protection for women when before there was absolutely none! Aside from male relatives, but that's not system-wide, makes such cases seem not serious enough or that people across communities shouldn't care too much about others when you personalize it, AND that just reinforces the idea that only men have a property claim over women, be they biologically family or by marriage. Secondly, if you argue that Viserys should have obeyed the "laws" of male primogeniture bc he is a feudal king--the "Protector" of their customs and interests--that is only supported by the swords & loyalty of lords, that the GC of 101 proves that (as if Jaehaerys also didn't use that to enact his own will passively for a male heir), then why is it that Rhaenys seems to do something along those lines and WORK with the current Andal customs, her efforts--which actually are protective to those who needed protecting!!! Rhaenys & her siblings were new monarchs of a newly unified-ish realm, & as unifying conquerors tend to do, they opted for the strategy that would keep them seated bc it made "the lords" comfortable that they would not force them to change the bulk of their religious and cultural practices. Not only did Visenya & Rhaenys arrange strategic marriages that both benefited them and those married (their families), but Aegon made it a point to go on progresses and hear various lords and peasants' issues to arbitrate. Which made it so that these lords felt they would not be led by a leader who'd enforce his laws willy-nilly without considering his subject's conditions or desires. It is in this context that Rhaenys, we could see and assume, was taking a bit of a risk with not one but 2 new laws against men's "rights" over their wives' bodies!

There's Alysanne, who took it a step further in her women's courts, and the right of first nigh abolishment, her attempts at the Citadel, & the Widow's Law. Again, if not for her, Westeros and KL would be 3 steps behind in infrastructure and women's protection. Alysanne was a Queen Consort who had even less power on her own than Rhaenys & Visenya and we see that she had to convince Jaehaerys to implement his laws; it took Septon Barth's interference/support for Jaehaerys to even go along with the abolishment of the right of first night! Later with Viserra, I believe that she arranged the much older Theomore to Viserra bc it coincided with Jaehaerys' plans for that marriage alliance between the Manderlys and the royal house. And to please or to go along with some of her husband's plans was to also add onto her own power…bc a royal Consort only has power by their monarch spouse gives them license to influence and status! Was it clumsy writing? Of course, it was pretty bizarre and partly due to how F&B is written as a historical document despite how this portion of history is better documented than others. Did Alysanne indirectly cause Viserra's death in her refusal to relent from her suspicion that Viserra was trying to become queen, as she interpreted it? Arguably. and I think that GRRM was telling us that over time and over the disappointments w/Jaehaerys, she slowly got more determined to retain any sense control…and where does her control end up coming from? Yeah, GRRM is showing that tightrope, I think.

Rhaenyra was not actively progressive in policy nor direct action as all the prior 3, but to argue that she should be feminist so that the usurpation and the femicide done against her becomes unjustified is absurd! Oh, she wasn't a feminist at all or progressive, she didn't implement any sort of law at all for women or smallfolk [did Aegon?! or Alicent?! or Aemond? Daeron, Otto?! so why are they better?!!!], so that's why she shouldn't be queen even though by the very "law of the land", she is by right the heir to this throne that never actually was about who would make a good, consummate ruler in the first place. 🙄.

So there is a vague & un-discernable, forever shifting, & impossible goal-post-level of feminist activity or "being" that these nihilistic or conservative naysayers use against women being leaders or even passively having positions of power that may still benefit the women of Westeros through setting a precedent &/or actions of necessary intervals that build on the past ones under conditions that are already limiting how much they can do or say in order to be able to put forth those feminist (really proto feminist), anti-slavery, etc., progressive steps--on a damn psychological and psychosocial level that:

diminishes how much brain power and time a woman can put to policy or things outside of the "house" because their power depends on the husband's regard towards them

makes it much harder for women to really commit themselves or fully expect to implement their goals & dreams for any sort of change (or even dream of any) when there's such subtle and unsubtle obstacles in their way: Rhaenyra, her stepmother an siblings plotting against her and then the usurpation, that we see in the microcosm of how the treasury stolen from her and the crown led to the smallfolk turning against her at KL AND the ongoing war, thus preventing her from really establishing herself as Queen/ruling at all; Alysanne, I described with Jaehaerys; Rhaenys, Andal patriarchy; much less, in Rhaena the Black Bride's case, find just actual happiness and plain old security against male aggression!

provides a setting where women become more compelled to compromise with some patriarchal ideas/practices to maintain a certain level of power or defense (there's a thing line to measure and transgress the "right way" and without other's judgement and impatience or lack of faith adds an additional pressure of, outside of fiction but applicable)

leads up to Daenerys having to have the strength to pursue her goals on with her own instincts and compassion and wit, work harder than most men would face in her position...not that any could since men cannot and have not largely had the bridal slave’s experience!

Anyway, all of it ignores or tries to hide the fact that it is exactly that undisrupted male authority over female (of any class or wealth) & under-classed people that is the true destabilizer and destroyer of lives. That there is still so much meaning and real impact in what people like Alysanne and Rhaenys did/do and huge upheavals or entire sweeps of structural change like Dany does takes measured steps!

That through multiple Targ women dying form childbirth, raped, murdered, or sidelined and critically limited in political authority or agency, this becomes so obvious! you cannot oppress half of your population, reduce them to sex-giving broodmares who you can kill if you think they have a male heir on the way or have cheated on you and call yourself progressive! You're actually 10 steps behind where you're supposed to be because half of you is not involved enough in the development of your society!

We wanna be all "feudalism is bad", "blood purity is bad", "the Targs didn't end feudalism so they are the most evil and responsible for all evil in Westeros" but when they see someone either passively or actively seem to make any progress to mitigate the pressures and power of patriarchal boundaries or concepts or whatever....they go screaming "not feminist enough" or "they're actually just like everyone else"! And some of us will also try to say that Daenerys is either entirely too much like her colonist ancestors or she will end up that way as D&D published because she is Targaryen (a bio-essentialist argument) to argue about why SLAVEOWNERS should stay in power!

And it all is very anti-intellectualism, anti-critical thought or introspection and examination...because on closer look and investigation, you will see how F&B is a text that was always anti-misogyny on GRRM's part (attemptively) even as it is misogynist as an-in world text! And it's on purpose--both the writing and how people wax "it's a dragon show, nothing at all to do with misogyny or wokeness!"

Because then you are not challenging the status quo...because you can't reason through it or against it and when it happens in seemingly harmless manifestations people will think it innocuous.

I think what's really frustrating about this is that Alicent literally spent all of the last season trying to get Lucerys killed/exiled! Like she literally tried to stab his eye out and supported a man trying to oust him as a bastard. She's the one who taught Aemond to view Luke and his brothers as subhuman!!

The idea of that woman fucking sympathizing with his death is laughable at best. She wanted him gone, she wanted Rhaenyra to suffer for having him; she got what she wanted. This is the outcome of her spending Luke's entire life badmouthing him and trying to hurt him. She should at least own up to it, but noooo, Saint Alicent is just so "sympathetic" to her enemies. Shame she couldn't have any empathy back when Luke was alive.

continuously intertwining rhaenyra with alicent was fine in season one, where they were directly at odds with one another, but trying to paint alicent as sympathetic to rhaenyra’s plight while rhaenyra is at the funeral of the son who was murdered by alicent’s is asylum worthy.

rhaenyra is grieving, jacaerys is grieving, joffrey, daemon, baela, rhaena, rhaenys, corlys are all grieving; alicent is NOT. she doesn’t care about rhaenyra, or she wouldn’t have waged war against her, raised her children to view their sister as the enemy, and usurped her throne. she especially doesn’t give a shit about luke, the kid she wanted to maim in revenge years before and the boy she viewed as both beneath her and not even as a true loss because he wasn’t human in her eyes. she thinks aemond is justified in lashing out, because he never received an ‘apology’ (i wouldn’t apologize either if i was a seven year old who thought my brother was going to have his head bashed in).

honor and decency were thrown out the window last season when alicent’s cause started murdering innocents over preconceived slights that SHE, personally, laid the groundwork for, and luke’s death is the result of that. she might be upset about her coveted ‘peace’ no longer being an option, but she doesn’t care about rhaenyra, her dead child, or the anguish that she is suffering through currently. he’s just an easy out for her to claim penance from her utterly idiotic decisions that keep killing people.

The "human heart in conflict with itself"

More often than not, when I see or experience an exchange with somebody arguing that Jon and Dany are "more interesting" as enemies/"rivals", that person ends up being a Jonsa.

For instance, this is a classic view:

It's funny how many who would identify themselves as a Jonsa fan would say the same of Jonerys: "more interesting" as enemies, as "rivals", as antagonists. No "stale bread conflictless romance" for Jonsas!... Unless it's Jonsa, that is. These are the same people saying Jon will come back hyper fixated on protecting Sansa, reset his personal preferences and characteristics, will play "Beast" to Sansa's "Beauty", the "Prince Eric" to Sansa's "Ariel", and will literally manifest Sansa's happily ever after (or Sansa must sadly and gracefully let go of it and her love Jon as a selfless sacrifice for the independence of the North...) Jonsa fantasies aside, what exactly makes an antagonistic relationship between two strangers "interesting"? What dynamic exists here? It's just, at its most passionate, hate. There's no contrasting emotion, no push and pull, no exchange with another set of feelings. It's just one thing -- bad. Even if Jon found out he and Ramsay were blood related, I don't think Jon is going to have much of an inner conflict over killing the guy. This is the only "humanity" Jonsas allow Jon where Dany is concerned (a bit of shame of kinslaying), which I think is telling. More telling still is how Jonsas want Jon to deal with this and Dany: to sexually exploit, use, abuse, deceive Dany before deciding to coldly kill & dispose of her. And this is one of their leading theories. Most, if not all, of their theories depend on Dany going dark/"mad" -- they seem to involve more of Dany than Sansa. Sansa's chapters have both positive and negative contexts when 'sweet' is used but who's going around claiming how this means Sansa will be betrayed by a lover and killed by his hand? Yet, for Dany, this means Jon will betray her with a knife to the back during their intimacy so he can marry Sansa.

The word 'shadow' has been used 657 times in ASOIAF throughout all POVs and chapters -- it has been used descriptively, to convey mystery, uncertainty, it can be physical blocked light or a metaphor. In Jon's case, it's often used in terms of his mysterious/uncertain/unknown identity. But who cares? When it comes to Dany, it now means betrayal and ulterior motive and Pol!Jon. Jon will betray her with a knife to the back during their intimacy so he can marry Sansa. Sansa throws a feast for the nobles with a lemon cake "just for her" while famine spreads across the country? Queen. Dany feels hungry in the middle of nowhere, malnourished, and feverish? And the wolf cry didn't stop her from being hungry? She's Aerys come again. That's why it'll be a-ok when Jon will betray her with a knife to the back during their intimacy so he can marry Sansa.

But seriously, I don't have any expectation that Jon/Dany would be without conflict, especially in ASOIAF because it's GRRM and things are messy. However, ASOIAF's relationships are always full of emotion, though, and that's what I'd expect and really love to read. Lots and lots of emotions, conflicting, confusing, surprising, fun fun emotions. Jon and Dany are both very young and they're both pretty scarred with one currently dead. And you know, maybe it's Dany who'd have the issue with Jon rather than Jon clutching his pearls at Dany because what if a child does die due to Jon's actions/commands or Jon is pushed to execute a wildling hostage? Yeah? What if it's Dany clutching pearls and Jon telling her to deal with it. And then they go into the back and Maybe maybe that's what we'll see one day, hey. I need to get sober.

i hate it how like... the show made rhaenyra look fairly innocent other than having bastards (despite doing a lot of cruel things in the book) but the one bad thing that aegon does to dyana was actually by word of mushroom who was team black despite aegon consistently being considered like a decent fucking person

To anyone who believes fairy tale romances never happen in real life, may I remind you that JRR and Edith Tolkien met and experienced a forbidden love in their youth, and then were separated for five whole years because of his guardian’s rules that he could not date till he was 21, and she got engaged to someone else only because she assumed he’d forgotten her and lost hope that she could ever be with him, but then on his 21st birthday, he wrote her a letter saying he still loved her and wanted to marry her, she responded basically saying ‘if I’d known you hadn’t left me on the shelf, I would never have said yes to anyone else,’ then a week later she greeted him at the train station and then immediately dumped her fiancé, and they got married and she converted to his religion and danced for him in a flowering field far away from the trenches into which he was drafted, which left such an impression that he crafted an entire story about the most beautiful maiden in the world who danced in the woods and made enormous sacrifices to be with the man she loved, and they had four kids and remained faithful to each other and blissfully grew old together and their gravestones are now marked with the names of that same fictional couple that he created, who broke every rule and overcame every possible obstacle to be together and get a happy ending, who only did all that because he based it all on their own real love story.