high in the halls of the kings who are gone

yes to this! what people might have meant before is that hotd has been going out of its way in s2 to equate women = don’t want war, men = want war, and by that placing women as the “inherently more tender, less cruel gender”, and men as the “naturally more violent” one.

in a world such as hotd violence is all around and thus does not have to only be taught directly--and rhaenrya already is violent in s1 when she kills the boar, but that part of her character is completely ignored afterwards.

the problem with this is not that it is untrue (men and women are “made” via social processes) but if you make it inviolable (so, for example, ALL women are anti-war, ALL men lust for war) you are suggesting, whether intentionally or not, that the social is essentially functioning the same way as biological inevitability functions in other frameworks, and i don’t think relocating it to the social erases it is making sex/gender essentially fixed properties. so yes, rhaenyra and alicent were raised as women and as such precluded from being “socialized” as warriors because of misogynistic conceptions of women’s physical capacity and martial activity’s incommensurability with their assigned reproductive role etc, but to suggest that their gendered socialization is so total and successful they can never demonstrate a similar interest in the sphere of war validated by their culture as their male peers is a form of essentialism.

i can think of a few examples in hotd of characters who do break the gendered expectations we’re speaking of here, even in regard to war and violence. though, the overlap of violence and masculinity in a patriarchal society is a theme in the show (and in asoiaf) and the point they’re trying to make here. examining this concept is not gender essentialism

i was a bit harsh there because i was thinking of the comment above yours, so i’m sorry, i should have been more careful with my words.

yes to this! what people might have meant before is that hotd has been going out of its way in s2 to equate women = don’t want war, men = want war, and by that placing women as the “inherently more tender, less cruel gender”, and men as the “naturally more violent” one.

in a world such as hotd violence is all around and thus does not have to only be taught directly--and rhaenrya already is violent in s1 when she kills the boar, but that part of her character is completely ignored afterwards.

the problem with this is not that it is untrue (men and women are “made” via social processes) but if you make it inviolable (so, for example, ALL women are anti-war, ALL men lust for war) you are suggesting, whether intentionally or not, that the social is essentially functioning the same way as biological inevitability functions in other frameworks, and i don’t think relocating it to the social erases it is making sex/gender essentially fixed properties. so yes, rhaenyra and alicent were raised as women and as such precluded from being “socialized” as warriors because of misogynistic conceptions of women’s physical capacity and martial activity’s incommensurability with their assigned reproductive role etc, but to suggest that their gendered socialization is so total and successful they can never demonstrate a similar interest in the sphere of war validated by their culture as their male peers is a form of essentialism.

i can think of a few examples in hotd of characters who do break the gendered expectations we’re speaking of here, even in regard to war and violence. though, the overlap of violence and masculinity in a patriarchal society is a theme in the show (and in asoiaf) and the point they’re trying to make here. examining this concept is not gender essentialism

yes to this! what people might have meant before is that hotd has been going out of its way in s2 to equate women = don’t want war, men = want war, and by that placing women as the “inherently more tender, less cruel gender”, and men as the “naturally more violent” one.