Game of Thrones: The Problem With Normalising Sexual Violence

TRIGGER WARNING: Discussion about rape, including a couple confronting images from Game of Thrones (R 18+). 

DISCLAIMER: This review only concerns Jaime and Cersei of Game of Thrones' "Breaker of Chains" and does not contain spoilers for any other parts Season Four. No other characters' plotlines from Season 4 are mentioned. If that's ok with you, proceed. 



Ok. I wasn't going to jump on this bandwagon because I thought there were enough articles out there, but now that I've read about twenty I've hardly found any that get to the heart of why depicting sexual violence against women on Game of Thrones (or any TV show, for that matter) is a serious problem. 

If you're not up to speed, here's the lowdown: in the latest episode of Game of Thrones, Jaime Lannister rapes his sister Cersei, with whom he had previously been having a consensual relationship. 

A huge, huge problem is that not everyone is viewing this scene is a rape, when GODAMMIT IT CLEARLY WAS. I quote Allyson Keene of Collider, who assumed that: "Jaime and Cersei [were] having violent but passionate grief sex" (full article here, SPOILERS BEWARE).

And the director of the episode himself, Alex Graves: "It becomes consensual by the end"
(full article here, SPOILERS BEWARE).

Honestly, you have to be pretty fucked up to not see that a woman sobbing and saying "no" while a man forces himself onto her is rape.

Moving on the issue of rape-as-a-plot-device in it's entirety (for a definition of "plot device" and why it's lazy writing, click here), this article: "We Need to Talk About Jaime" (SPOILERS IN THE LINK) says it best, particularly this quote, about a different character: 

"The sexualization of [Arya's] character through rape threats was completely unnecessary."

The reason everyone has blown up about the Jaime/Cersei scene is not because violence as a plot device is a problem. If it was a problem we wouldn't be watching the show at all. What is a problem is the constant, unnecessary, objectified sexualisation of female characters for cheap plot devices, or for no reason at all. 

Some people have argued that this scene is to remind the audience that Jaime, who viewers have begun to like, is actually a bad guy after all. I can understand this, but why does it have to come at Cersei's expense? Cersei is a complex character who a lot of viewers tend to hate (because she can be pretty awful). But she is powerful, and her power is what drives her and makes her dangerous and compelling. What made the writers decide to render her powerless by way of sexual violence? The cheap plot device here is using rape as a way to quickly give the audience a way of sympathising with an unlikeable character. 

On a similar note, it can be argued that seeing the brutal, sadistic way Joffrey treats prostitutes helps the audience understand his character and how awful he is - but this comes at the terrible, terrible expense of not only the prostitute characters, but the actresses as well. Last time I checked, the scene where he forces two girls to beat each other while he watches didn't advance THEIR character development. Sure, some characters have to be used as pawns for another character's growth, but when you are doing it over and over again by means of sexual violence ... you are treading in dangerous territory. This is not about what works in a story. This is about popular culture normalising rape culture. 

Women are more than their bodies. Women are more than sexual objects. If the men can be seen as more than that, why not the female characters too? I am sick of watching this show take all of it's powerful, well-developed female archetypes and reducing them to worthless aside from their sexuality. 

• Brienne defies the oppression against women and becomes a knight, only to be seen as nothing but female body parts there for the brutal taking once captured.

• Sansa is continuously referred to as a child (and she is - 14), yet is still a target for rape - she is almost gang-raped by a group of strangers in the city in Season 2. Not even the fact that the actress was under eighteen at the time of filming stopped the writers from sexualising her character. In a previous scene, her husband-to-be instructs a knight to tear her clothes in front of a whole court and threatens to kill her with a crossbow (Joffrey later does kill someone with a crossbow, the aftermath of which is shown in graphic, sexualised detail. See further down.) 

• Danaerys is sold as a teenage bride to a man twice her age and three times her size, and repeatedly raped by him until she figures out how to fulfil his needs in a way that doesn't leave her brutalised. 

This continuous usage of rape as quick way to move to the next part of the plot or provide second-hand development for ANOTHER CHARACTER is not ok. All of these scenes are subtle (and not so sublte) nods towards stripping a woman of her power. Why is it ok for this to happen to LITERALLY EVERY FUCKING MAIN FEMALE CHARACTER ON THE SHOW? As mentioned above, even 13-year-old Arya is threatened with rape! She is powerless unless disguised as a boy. 

I'm sure a few people will argue that the show does depict sexual violence against men - Theon Greyjoy has been subject to this for a while. I don't condone this either but I will point out that A) his character has always been depicted as powerless, with or without the attempted rape and B) he is one man of tens on the show. Make of that what you will.

And that's not even mentioning all the rest of the non-violent objectification of women. I'm sorry, but if you're putting tit shots in one scene and a rape in the next, where are you drawing the line between what's acceptable and what's not? Doesn't one image enhance the other? How are you supposed to feel when a character is presented as this (first image) in one scene and this (second image - CONFRONTING) in another?

If you're confused about what falls under the definition of rape culture: THIS DOES.

Here is a quote by Mary McGill that backs up my points: "The simple truth is this: objectification hurts women. It silences our voices, paints over our thoughts, stamps out our souls, leaving a mute, blank canvas onto which our culture can project some of its darkest stereotypes and myths. When we raise women to see themselves only as things to be desired by men and to judge themselves accordingly, as if nothing else about them truly matters, we are committing a terrible wrong." (full article here)

I'll conclude by adding that I can't say rape is a no-go for stories at all. Rape is something real, scary as that may be, and you have to be able to write about real things (feel free to ask me about Veronica Mars or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo if you want examples for justified usage). However, using rape as a cheap plot device that results in nothing but unnecessary sexualisation of a character is not okay. People, and characters, should not be defined solely by their ability to be objectified. 

By all means, argue my points. But I won't stand by and see my gender be made less of for the sake of "story". Writers, you can do better, and you should. Half your viewers of Game of Thrones are women. I don't know why we're even still watching, but I guess we're used to putting up with this shit. Because we have to deal with it in real life, too. 

In which I talk about something important.

I tend to think about this sort of stuff a lot, and I read about it on twitter and on other people's blogs, but I haven't really written about it myself. This time, however, I feel like I need to say something and add my voice to the mix because something has happened that has reminded me about this problem. 

The problem is women being objectified as sex objects purely for the pleasure of men. 

Even deeper, often the problem is that women think being objectified in this way is ok. In fact, if given the opportunity it seems that some women are more than happy to be a sex symbol. Take Cameron Diaz, for example, in a recent article from The Sunday Times: "I think every woman does want to be objectified. There's a little part of you at all times that hopes to be somewhat objectified, and I think it's healthy... "

It's not healthy. I agree with Mary McGill who quoted Cameron in this article. My post is kind of connected with that so I suggest you read her words as well. 

Anyway, onto my particular vexation. 

Anyone who knows me well knows I'm a pretty big fan of the actress Jessica Chastain. Right now my head is almost exploding with anticipation for her latest flick, Zero Dark Thirty. If you go onto my tumblr, Jessica's face is my icon and sidebar picture. I reblog images of her in films and in photoshoots (I reblog loads of other non-Jessica things too, just putting that out there. Don't worry). I've seen almost every film she's been in so far. She even has a tag on this blog. I had a mini bout of insanity last month and thought I could work out a way to go see her performing in a play on Broadway in New York, and then came to my senses and realised it was near impossible, and was a bit disappointed. 

There are three reasons that I like Jessica. One is that I think she is a phenomenal actress, one of the absolute best in Hollywood at the moment. She's only been a known name in the industry for a few years and yet the latest gossip expects she'll be celebrating her second nomination at the next Academy Awards, and possibly her first win. 

The second is that she comes across as a lovely, funny, humble person in her interviews. I try and keep up with a lot of film-related news and often read about actors' and actresses' latest projects, so it's nice when a person seems to very genuine and enjoyable to read about. 

The third reason is that after years of hard work going through acting school in New York and doing small jobs,  Jessica got a big break and with all of her major films (shot over about five years) unusually all pushed back to 2011 releases, she had a bit of a dream run into the film industry. She's worked with Al Pacino, Terrence Malick, Kathryn Bigelow, Guillermo Del Toro, Ralph Fiennes, and Brad Pitt and is sure to be flagged down by many other big names in the near future. It's pretty lucky and doesn't happen very often but I like knowing that it can happen, because I hope one day to be in the film industry and it's encouraging to see what some people can achieve if they are passionate and determined. 

Anyway, back to the tumblr thing. I was on tumblr this morning and I follow quite a few people who post pictures of Jessica Chastain, so there's often a lot of her on my feed. I've seen hundreds of photoshoot images of her before, but when I saw the latest ones that had everyone else abuzz I was surprised (even a little shocked) to find myself feeling uncomfortable when I looked at them. It wasn't anything like I'd seen her do before. Here are the pictures: 

photo credit

photo credit

 If you haven't figured it out, GQ is a men's magazine. The header for the article is "IN BED WITH JESSICA CHASTAIN". Well, that's great, isn't it Jessica? You have reduced yourself to a hot redhead lying ready for however many men would like to picture themselves in that bed with you. Which is, I would think, every man that reads this magazine. 

I'm so disappointed that I feel a little sick. I feel like this photoshoot undermines Jessica's character in Zero Dark Thirty, which she made under the direction of Kathryn Bigelow. Bigelow is a great filmmaker and is, unfortunately, the only woman to ever win an Oscar for directing. There are a lot of great female directors out there and I hope that the number of those who have won an Acadamy Award increases soon. Zero Dark Thirty is yet to be released, but from what I've read, the story centers around Jessica Chastain's character, who is an independent, driven woman. There is not a hint of a love interest in her story. She is portrayed as the strongest, smartest character in the film. 

Why, then, does she choose to have that character cheapened by doing this photoshoot accompanied by an article where she talks about that character? I went on the GQ site to get these photos, and to get to it you have to click on the navigation button "GIRLS". 

The "article" is just below that page, so thankfully I didn't have to click on any of the sub-headings that you can see above. Ugh. The funny thing is that the actual article, or even part of it, isn't available on the website. You have to buy the magazine to read anything that Jessica said, so for anyone who doesn't fork over the £4 to read it gets to keep on imagining that she's just a sex symbol. Yay. 

I did track down parts of the article on other websites, so I found a little of what Jessica had to say: 

"It’s a huge compliment when someone says you’re attractive, especially when I was such an awkward kid – I was very tomboyish, with very short red hair, running around with cowboy boots on. So when someone tells me I’m a sex symbol I’m like, "what?".  But I’ll take what I can get.  That’ll teach all those boys back in Junior High! In fact, I hope my very first boyfriend, the guy I dated for one month and who broke up with me at the Valentine’s Day Dance – I hope that boy reads this article."

Jessica, I have to say that I hope he doesn't read it. I hope he came to his senses and realised that love and appreciation should not be based purely on a person's looks. And I hope you realise that too. I hope you realise that you don't need these kinds of photoshoots, that you don't need to use your body to prove something to someone. That you are enough without objectifying yourself. 

I feel affected by this because in some ways I look up to Miss Chastain. Sometimes I wish I could have her success, her beauty, her talents. But these pictures serve as a reminder to me that I am enough, that God made me the way he made me for a reason, and that I don't need to wish for something else because God loves me just the way I am, and other people will too. 

I shouldn't worry about what other people think of my body. About whether a guy will find me attractive because of the way I cut my hair. Or the kind of clothes I wear. Or how I sit or stand or speak. But it's hard sometimes. Especially when the examples placed before us tell us that we aren't good enough. 

To all the tomboys out there, the girls with short hair, the girls who run around in cowboy boots, the girls whose first boyfriends broke up with them because they didn't think you were pretty ... don't change yourself. You are beautiful and you are enough. 

Jessica, I'm still going to watch your movies and enjoy reading your interviews, but I hope you realise the affect that these kinds of things have on people. Even though you're not a household name all over the world, there are many, many people that you influence. I hope you will choose not to do these kinds of shoots in the future and that you will become an example that women can follow. There is no place in this world for objectification of anyone. Please don't do it to yourself. You deserve more than that.