Earlier, I told you how Game of Thrones author George R. R. Martin came out against GamerGate, calling it a “monstrous toad” that had “begun to shake his belief in the basic decency of human beings.” This was in the context of the Hugo Awards controversy, which was a fight between the GamerGate friendly Sad Puppies and the social justice warriors who control most of the science fiction publishing industry.
In that article, I made the point that Martin was evincing an “I’ve Got Mine” attitude: he stood with the social justice crowd despite the fact that they hated the things he’d written, because he was too rich for them to touch. If Martin was a new author, they would do everything they could to ostracize him and ensure that his career as an author failed.
Well, I was proven right this Monday as arch-feminist website The Mary Sue announced that they will stop promoting Game of Thrones after a character in the story was raped.
“You Can’t Say That!”
This was brought on by a recent episode of the TV series, in which a character was raped. I’ve never seen the show, because as a rule I don’t watch homosexual torture porn, but from what I can make out through the hysterics (and indeed, the post’s author seems to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown), this is the second time this has happened to this particular character. The story behind the rapes is convoluted and uninteresting (like the rest of the series), but from the author, director, and scriptwriters’ perspective, this was a necessary event. The Mary Sue’s writers, however, have decided that it was not. They go so far as to say that “rape is not a necessary plot device.”
At any point in time.
This will come as a surprise to many readers of this site, especially the well-read ones. You’re probably wondering how you could tell the story of The Rape of the Sabine Women, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, or the story of Leda and the Swan, all of which were for centuries considered parts of a basic education, without any rape. Those with a less classical bent will wonder as to the fate of every single episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.
Like murder, rape has been around for as long as mankind, and it’s been a part of our stories since we started telling them. The oldest surviving work of literature in human history, The Epic of Gilgamesh, contains accounts of rape. And just like stories of murder, since the dawn of mankind we’ve understood that a depiction of something does not equal an endorsement. No one, from the days of the earliest Hebrew scribes, has understood the tale of Cain and Abel as endorsing murder. And until SJWs came along, nobody understood stories about rape as endorsing rape, either.
When you read the Mary Sue post, the thing that sticks out the most is the hysterical tone of the writer. She’s not annoyed, or bothered, or irritated. She was, to use her own words, “filled with utter disappointment.” When the episode ended, she says she was “gutted,” “sick to her stomach,” and “angry.” The post even includes an editor’s note with a “trigger warning,” informing readers where they can go to find out about “support options for survivors of sexual abuse!” This is not a normal or healthy reaction to a television show.
Reaxxion sister site Return of Kings saw something similar recently. Author Aaron Clarey wrote a piece encouraging viewers to skip the latest Mad Max movie, which appeared to be getting a little too SJW-friendly for the taste of the average RoK reader. The piece was, by Clarey’s standards, a relatively mild one, and by Return of Kings standards was as provocative as the nutritional information on the back of a cereal box.
This mild, inoffensive article, however, was picked up by the mainstream media. Authors for CNN, the Huffington Post, and even British sites like the Guardian and the Telegraph all wrote about it. Out of all the millions of words written at Return of Kings, an article on an upcoming movie was the one that sent them into a frenzy.
This Is All They Have
The Mary Sue and Mad Max incidents stem from the same problem: modern women, especially those under the age of 35, have an unhealthy relationship with television and media. A healthy person does not feel “gutted” when something happens in a television show they don’t like. They do not feel angry. And they most certainly do not write multiple articles for the biggest news in the world about how some nobody (sorry, Cappy) doesn’t like an upcoming movie.
Where is this coming from? I submit to you that it’s because women like the authors of the Mary Sue piece are depressed, miserable people.
We know that one in four American women, for example, is on antidepressants. We know that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago. And why wouldn’t they be? They have no husband to love. No children to mother. If they’re atheist (which they often are), they don’t even have a church social group to give them something to gossip about. The only things they have are television and movies. No wonder they’re getting so emotional about them: they have nothing else to get emotional about.
When you see an article where a feminist starts screeching about something in an HBO television show or an upcoming movie that she doesn’t like, don’t feel angry. Just pity her. Fifty years ago, she would’ve had a family and a social circle. Now all she has is the cold, flat glow of an LCD screen.