I watch a lot of TV. Like…a lot. It’s not the ONLY thing I
do at home, but compared to other hobbies, I do put a LOT of hours into it.
According to a Roy Morgan survey done on behalf of Free TV Australia (the body
that represents all the free to air stations in Australia), on average my
fellow Australians are watching 20 hours a week.
Speaking for myself, I’m almost always doing something else
while I’m watching TV (most likely my nails) and I haven’t watched free to air
other than Eurovision in YEARS. However, TV is still a big part of my life, and
a big influence simply because it’s THERE so much of the time, seeping
information into my brain. Between my boy and I there is approximately 3TB of
TV and movies in our house, and we watch at least one full length TV episode or
movie every weeknight.
The point I’m trying to make is that I watch a lot of TV, and I
think it’s impossible to imagine that a form of entertainment I spent this much
time in front of doesn’t affect how I see myself and the world around me. So it
bothers me when I read articles accusing Game of Thrones, one of my absolute
favourite shows on TV at the moment, as being primarily created for titillation,
not to mention accusations of straight up misogyny.
There was also a ridiculous article insisting that Game of Thrones is only "for boys", but that bit of link bait is too stupid for me to even respond to. The accusations of misogyny though? That bothers me. It just doesn’t feel like a fair assessment to me – I would like to think I
know misogynistic TV when I see it, and this doesn’t feel like that. Game of
Thrones feels more like Buffy The Vampire Slayer to me – watching it makes me
feel bolder, more confident, and to get all excitable about it, proud to be a
woman. In my experience, it feels definitely feminist.
![]() |
I love this picture almost as much as I love the show itself. |
But “it doesn’t feel like that” is a piss poor argument when
it comes to media analysis. I’ve been trying to nut out exactly WHY I would
define Game of Thrones as feminist, or at least egalitarian, in rational terms.
I found, to my surprise, that when I tried to define what I mean by “feminist
TV” it’s actually quite a slippery concept to pin down.
At first I thought my feelings in favour of Game of Thrones
despite the admittedly excessive nudity and ludicrously anachronistic body hair
might be due to the male to female ratio in the main cast. One of the things
that has really jumped out at me about the most recent season of Game of
Thrones is that the main cast is FULL of women. And all sorts of women too –
mean ones, kind ones, powerful ones, naïve and powerless ones…they’re
everywhere, and there’s all kinds! It’s a cornucopia of female characters! It
seemed logical that the sheer volume of female characters might be what made
Game of Thrones feel so much more feminist to me than other shows of similar
popularity. After all, my favourite feminist TV of all time is Buffy The
Vampire Slayer, and they maintained an either even or female heavy ratio
throughout their seven seasons.
Of course, I’m not the first person to think that numbers of
female characters in media might be part of what constitutes feminist media. The
Geena Davis Institute has done some fascinating research comparing the ratio of
women to men in family movies, and the results were pretty depressing – by their
count men outnumber women three to one. THREE to ONE. And you don’t want to
know how many of those female characters were in any sort of full time
employment. (spoiler alert – it’s not a high percentage) I was curious to find
out whether these upsetting statistics translated across to TV as well – if
they did, it would follow that the number of women in Game of Thrones is very
likely to be what makes it feel feminist to me.
Because I’m a nerd, I sat down and devised a method to
crunch some numbers. I got a list of the top 5 rated shows on Tv.com, and
compared the promo shots used for each show. This seemed to be the best way to
get an idea of who counted as “main” cast for shows I don’t watch like…well,
all of the ones of the list apart from Game of Thrones. I wouldn’t really pick
out any of those shows as being particularly feminist, so it seemed like a good
point of comparison. Maybe you watch these shows and the results I came up with
won’t surprise you – but they surprised the hell out of me.
![]() |
Grey's Anatomy cast |
![]() |
Big Bang Theory Current Cast |
![]() |
It is worth noting this was the original Big Bang Theory cast. |
![]() |
Criminal Minds cast |
![]() |
How I Met Your Mother cast |
It seems I was actually pretty wrong. It’s quite possible to
have a reasonable proportion of female characters in the main cast without a show turning out
particularly feminist. In hindsight, this should have been obvious given my
annoyance at shows like Sex In The City that have an almost entirely female cast,
and yet still manage to feel horribly patronising to women. So if it’s not
numbers, what is it about Game of Thrones that makes it feel feminist to me?
A piece of the answer came to me while reading this
fantastic article – What Fast & Furious 6 Could Teach Star Trek IntoDarkness About Half Naked Women. Not only is it a BRILLIANT headline, the article also contains a really clever
observation I’ve not seen often enough in media analysis – when asking whether
something is sexist or not, context is always crucial. Nakedness isn’t always
automatically sexist, and having lots of women isn’t always automatically
feminist. It’s all about the context in which these things are shown. In the
article, this point is used to illustrate why people got so angry about the
totally pointless and gratuitous underwear scene in Into Darkness, and why Fast
& The Furious comes across as more feminist despite having way more eye
candy. It basically boils down to the role women play in context – in Star
Trek, they are unfortunately almost entirely “emotional cheerleaders” and other
assorted support staff. In Fast & The Furious, they’re independent,
intelligent, skilled characters whose actions contribute to the momentum of the
plot. Not ALL the female characters unfortunately - there is still a great deal of jiggly bouncy eye candy in the background. But at least the main female cast have relatively interesting characters. At least there ARE women who have motivation outside making the male characters happy, even if it's not all of them. This context makes a huge difference in the way these two films feel to a
female audience.
![]() |
Star Trek Into Darkness |
![]() |
Fast & Furious 6 |
Another aspect of the female character in Game of Thrones
that encourages me to define it as feminist is the sheer range of women
depicted. Let’s use our Star Trek comparison again to show how having a range
of different kinds of women being portrayed makes something friendlier towards
women.
In Star Trek: Into Darkness, there are only two women in the
main cast – one Caucasian women, one Latino woman. Both characters are approximately
the same age, very conventionally pretty, and have pretty much the same
personality. Both are intelligent and intellectual, approaching problems with
largely rational restraint. Both are aware of their attractiveness, but would
never dream of using it in order to get their way. It’s true that they’re both
Starfleet officers, so a certain amount of similarity is to be expected, but
seriously, Uhura and Carol are almost palette swaps of each other. This means
the depiction of women as a gender is MIGHTY narrow. There’s nothing TERRIBLE
about either of these characters – but there’s nothing particularly interesting
about them either. They could add four more female characters to the cast for
the next movie, but if they’re all the same as well, it would make little to no
difference to the sexism overall.
In Game of Thrones however, there are a veritable cornucopia
of female characters – all ages, several races, all with a wide variety of
personalities and motivations. All the female characters are of a very similar
physical build, it’s true. Unfortunately TV land apparently isn’t ready for a
fat female character just yet – not in a drama anyway. But personality wise, I
find the female characters in the show the most engaging, and the most
fascinating. Danerys is young and beautiful, and uses her sexuality when it
suits her. But she’s also a brilliant tactician, and more often uses her
brutal, steely determination and razor sharp wits to prevail. Cersei started
off as the standard scheming bitch character, but as the series has gone on her
motivations have become so much more complex – it’s shown how much of what she
does is to spite the father who never thought she was good enough, how much is
to protect the children she loves above everything else, how much she does just
to survive. Brienne is a fascinating examination of the implications of not
fitting into a traditional gender role when you’re living in a society that has
very fixed ideas on how women should be, and what they can and cannot do. Some
of the women of Game of Thrones are awful – scheming, cold, manipulative, and
even outright evil. Some of them are kind, and gentle; others are doing their
best in a bad situation. Well, actually, to be fair, MOST of them are doing
their best in a bad situation.
This is how women are – some of us are awful, some of us are
kind, most of us are just doing what we can. Hell, this is how PEOPLE are, and
this realistic depiction is why I feel like Game of Thrones is much kinder to
women than it’s made out to be sometimes. In terms of plot, it treats the
female characters in much the same way it treats the male characters – they are
equally complex, nuanced, varied, and necessary to the plot.
This, I think, is the key to what makes a show feminist. You
have to write the female characters the same way you do the male characters –
they have to be contributing to the overall plot in a meaningful way, they need
to have plot points revolve around them, parts of the show that would not exist
without them. There needs to be enough of them in the cast to allow for a
nuanced portrayal – while having lots of women in the cast doesn’t make a show
feminist, it does give it the opportunity to be feminist that you simply don’t
have when you’re trying to boil down an entire gender to one or two characters.
And that’s why I’m willing to live with the gratuitous tits, the totally
unnecessary lingering shots on perfectly toned female buttocks – I think that
what Game of Thrones has to say about the hearts and minds of women is valuable
enough to make it worth the occasional squirm.
This was a great post! I cannot understand the argument that GoT is misogynistic? The female characters in the series are not there merely to advance the male's interests (either sexually or in terms of the plot), but like you said, they all have their own complexities. They are treated as PEOPLE.
ReplyDeleteyeah, there's a lot of naked women, and very few naked men. I think if they can show vulvas, they should also show penises, but I do not think that this in itself screams sexism. Again, it's about context. Considering the societal setting, it fits to have naked women being used merely for sex, or being there to be raped. This world is barbaric and this just helps set that scent. Sure, the nudity / sex is gratuitous at times and I'm sure it's there to help publicity of the show but like you mentioned the overarching message about women is not that they are merely sexual creatures. Women can lead armies, and hold their own in a male-dominated world and that is awesome.
My husband and I are re-watching Buffy and Angel since a couple of months now and I am constantly explaining to him why I love Joss Whedon and Buffy - because Joss Whedon obviously makes a point in having strong female characters. There is a whole season where Buffy struggles with being a strong leader (aka The Slayer) AND being female at the same time - she struggles with society who wants her to be small, blonde and weak while she is small, blonde and strong. I loved that.
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched Game of Thrones yet, but I've read the books (highly recommend it!) and that someone could find it misogynist is beyond me. The female characters are all in their own way strong leaders, not attachments to some males. It makes the whole series highly believable and I think this is what contributed to the massive success of it (not only the TV show, but the books before it). They obviously never read the books - it is actually one of the "main" things of the book, the massive nudity and depiction of violence. It comes across differently when you read it, and has nothing of a misogynist touch, as it does not differentiate between genders.
Do you know "The Wheel of Time" book series? It is similar in setting and scale, but the female protagonists, while also being strong leaders in most cases, were simply SO STUPID. It outraged me to the point where I had to stop reading it. It's not enough having females in a prominent and strong role, they need to act like the actually have a brain.
As a side note about Star Trek - I've always felt that the original series which aired in the 60ies (!) made a feminist point by adding Uhura into the show. As far as I am aware, Uhura is african-american (not latino) and while she didn't belong to the leading three (Kirk, Bones, Spock), she WAS a starfleet officer - female AND black and belonged to the main cast (they also had a russian officer in spite of the cold war!). It caused a riot! I've always loved Star Trek for doing that. Also, after the second instalment (the one with the bald Picard guy) and I think another one, they had a spin-off (Voyager) with a female captain (Janeway). I loved that show to pieces.
Your assessment of the recent Star Trek movies is right, of course. I still love them, though, but I feel that Uhura is enough of a strong character for me to not go crazy about it. I disliked the addition of the blonde girl though - she is based on the character in one of the movies (the second one I think? Can't remember). where she actually had a somewhat more prominent role as the leader of a science team. The movie was done in the early 80ies I think. Comparing her role there to her role in the movie now feels like a step backwards.
Interesting.
if u're not sure, then it must be....humanist, which is even better.
ReplyDeleteA humanist, in a world in which women are disadvantaged in a range of ways, namely our world, must by definition be a feminist.
DeleteI was pretty sure that the producers of "24" hated women, (though I did end up falling in love with Chloe) - the female characters were always written as helpless, neurotic, hopeless, messes - frustrating :s
ReplyDelete