I want this to go smooth and by the numbers …
The chart above shows hits on my old blog post A Game of Thrones and the Misogyny of Imagined Worlds between 23rd February and 19th May 2012. The second season started on 1st April, and there’s a clear series of weekly peaks in views on my post, that occur between Tuesday and Thursday each week – corresponding to blog searches in the USA on Monday – Wednesday. The peak varies by week, but they’re a week apart and anyone who has any experience with time series can see in that data a shift in level, probably change in variance, and strong seasonal signal. Additionally, the height of the peak varies from week to week and I soon noticed it corresponds with just how nasty the treatment of women was in the episode of that week. So, in this post I’m going to show the effect, and give a numerical estimate of the extent of misogyny in each episode of A Game of Thrones, using crowd-sourcing based on google hits on my blog. Note that almost all the hits shown in this data series – 245 in April – are from google searches (though I think one week there might have been a link put up on facebook). This post is nearly a year old, and usually my year old posts (bar one or two techy ones that attract continual regular hits) get very few hits, and certainly never attract a pattern.
Methods
(Skip this if statistical methodology makes your eyes bleed).
I built a simple log-linear regression model using time, cyclical pulse functions for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday (the date for the first, second and third day after the show is released in the USA) and episode. Episode was set to zero for all days before the 1st April. This enabled the peaks to be (partially) fitted, and also allowed a specific magnitude effect for each episode. The model was not adjusted for serial correlation because serial correlation is notoriously hard to fit in series with low numbers of observations. I also suspect that the tight nature of the seasonality (7 days) compared to the unit of observation (1 day) in a short series and the sharp peaks will prevent models from converging, and this is what happened – I tried fitting a generalized estimating equation model with exchangeable correlation and got divergent estimates of correlation. Standard backwards stepwise model-building methods were used to eliminate unnecessary variables, with the usual strict inclusion criteria (a variable was out if it didn’t get a p-value less than 0.05 on a Wald test). Given the small number of observations, small counts in early parts of the series, and the fact I was driving this model like a Westerosian Ox-cart as it was, I figured it was best to avoid interaction terms of any kind.
The exponentiated coefficient for episode 1 incorporates a general effect of increased interest in the show with the onset of new seasons, but by calculating ratios of other exponentiated coefficients, one can estimate the degree of misogyny for all episodes relative to episode 1. Predicted values were also produced and plotted against observed values.
Results
Results of the model are shown in Table 1. Hits increased by a factor of 2.4 for episode 1 compared to pre-release hits, and each week the peak was on Wednesday, when hits were twice the values for Monday or Thursday. Hits declined by 1% per day over the period of data collection.
| Variable | Odds Ratio | 95 % CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 4.69 | 3.44 – 6.38 | 0.001 |
| Time | 0.99 | 0.98 – 1.00 | 0.2 |
| Tuesday Peak | 1.44 | 1.09 – 1.91 | 0.01 |
| Wednesday Peak | 2.06 | 1.61 – 2.63 | <0.001 |
| Episode 1 | 2.38 | 1.50 – 3.78 | <0.001 |
| Episode 2 | 2.58 | 1.51 – 4.43 | 0.001 |
| Episode 3 | 1.95 | 1.03 – 3.72 | 0.04 |
| Episode 4 | 3.63 | 1.79 – 7.36 | <0.001 |
| Episode 5 | 1.31 | 0.56 – 3.08 | 0.5 |
| Episode 6 | 2.07 | 0.82 – 5.20 | 0.1 |
| Episode 7 | 3.04 | 1.12 – 8.27 | 0.03 |
Note that episodes 5 and 6 are indistinguishable from background (pre-release) noise in their intensity of misogyny. Figure 1 shows the predicted values derived from this model, plotted with the observed values, and shows relatively good fit, although the model fails to reach the dizzying heights of misogyny displayed in some of the observed hits; but this could be the fault of that facebook link creating outliers, so we won’t get too angsty about that.
Figure 1: Observed and predicted numbers of views
From these results we can estimate the relative degree of misogyny of each episode, shown in Table 2. All estimated misogyny ratings are relative to episode 1.
| Episode | Rating relative to episode 1 |
|---|---|
| Episode 1 | 1 |
| Episode 2 | 1.08 |
| Episode 3 | 0.82 |
| Episode 4 | 1.53 |
| Episode 5 | 0.55* |
| Episode 6 | 0.87* |
| Episode 7 | 1.28 |
*Not significantly different from background noise.
Thus, the most misogynist episode was episode 4, while episodes 5 and 6 were indistinguishable from background noise. Although episode 3 was of lower misogyny rating than episode 1, it did attract significantly more views than during an equivalent period before the release of the show.
Conclusion
Viewers around the world increased their rate of searches about misogyny in A Game of Thrones, and rates of searching increased most in the days immediately following the release of each episode. The most misogynist episodes were:
- Episode 4: Sansa is stripped and beaten in public in the throne room; Joffrey forces one prostitute to beat (or sodomize?) another after they are sent to him to “sap the poison” though he will remain “a cunt”; Malesandre gives birth to a wicked shadowy abomination after an improbable pregnancy
- Episode 7: The strange and overly sexualized encounter between Jon Snow and his prisoner in the North; Sansa relives her near-rape in the previous episode; Jaime successfully taunts Catelyn with the memory of her husband’s infidelity; Daenerys loses her dragons and is reduced from her previous pride to dependency on Ser whatshisface
- Episode 2: Theon Greyjoy uses a woman like an object in his ship, abandons her and then fails to recognize and subsequently tries to fuck his own sister
In contrast, the least misogynist two episodes were:
- Episode 5: Theon is shown no the respect by his men, who obviously fear and obey his sister; Brienne proves herself to be tough and honourable; Daenerys rejects a marriage proposal; Arya is generally excellent
- Episode 6: Talisa the field nurse shows herself a spirited pacifist; Arya is once again generally excellent; Osha the wildling girl saves the Winterfell boys; this episode has some rape scenes and the delicious hypocrisy of Cersei’s attitude towards Sansa compared to her own betrothed daughter, which would be why its misogyny rating is higher than episode 5 – presumably Arya and Talisa save it from being higher
I think the relative ratings are generally quite representative, though perhaps an adjustment for the downward time trend needs to be incorporated to make them more accurate. This model fairly accurately fits to the data on search hits for this topic, and in my opinion sorts nicely between the most and least misogynist offerings. There is strong evidence that web search numbers correspond with the density of common signifiers of misogyny in any one episode (rape, mistreatment of prostitutes, degradation of childbirth through black magic, vicious anti-woman language, use of women as sex toys without regard for their feelings or identity, and women’s sexuality being either used as a tool for personal gain or expressing itself in incongruous neckbeard-fantasy ways). Hits are much lower on weeks where strong female characters take control of their own lives and act sensibly, even where their situation is difficult and/or oppressed.
Obviously, no one believes that google searches are reflective of some underlying truth about what is or isn’t misogynist or sexist. But I think they do at least show that a lot of people are disturbed by the images and themes in the show – disturbed enough to get on the internet and look to see what others think of the issue. This show has a deep streak of misogyny, and it isn’t going unnoticed.
Compromise and Conceit 
May 23, 2012 at 7:30 am
First, your statistics have absolutely nothing to say about cause; insisting that it “proves” misogyny is irresponsible.
Second, if you knew anything about the works of George R.R. Martin, you’d know the charge is ridiculous on its face
May 23, 2012 at 7:44 am
I see, having skimmed your other post, that you have not read Martins works, so let me explain my second comment. Life is cruel, stark, raw and real for everybody. There is at least as much misandry as misogyny, I have not seen the HBO series, but I doubt if they treat things much differently.
May 23, 2012 at 10:16 am
You haven’t seen the HBO series? Does that mean I can get all frothy and say that you don’t know what you’re talking about and your defense is ridiculous on its face?? More seriously, I recommend that you watch it – it’s really really good, regardless of its relationship to the books (though I get the impression that a lot of Westerosians appreciate it).
Returning to your earlier comments …
1. Statistics never have anything to say about cause – they simply offer confirmation of an experimental hypothesis. I’ve shown that the change in seasonality and weekly peaks in hits on that post are not random chance. Do you have an alternative explanation for those phenomena than “lots of people who watch A Game of Thrones get really disturbed by its misogynist content”?
2. If the charge is ridiculous on its face, then you should be able to present some argument as to what’s wrong with it. For example, was Theon Greyjoy’s attempt to fuck his own sister without even asking her name at all relevant to the plot or construction of the world? Did Malesandre have to give birth to her evil assassin spirit, rather than just conjuring it? Does Arya need to be threatened with rape within seconds of her gender being revealed, or could that moment have been allowed to slide?
3. Nothing about life as depicted in the show is “real.” In my last post I said I don’t think “real” medieval men behaved the way Westerosian men do, and I don’t think (in general) that men behave like that when women have no rights – I think it’s a neckbeard fantasy of how men would behave if women had no rights. Now it could be that the makers of the show (and/or Martin, depending on how one interprets the relationship between show and book) set out to create a world more misogynist than our own, but if so why? What have they gained from that?
4. There is almost no misandry in the show. Do you think calling Joffrey a “cunt” makes Bron a misandrist? The only evidence we have so far of any misandry is a few minutes of Cersei deriding men for thinking with their dicks. Sure, lots of men die and there’s war, but everyone knows that women are the greater portion of victims of war (and the show reminds us of this with its constant allusions to rape and slaughter). Furthermore, men wage war on each other for their own benefit – one doesn’t see many women rising to power through their tight control of men’s warring, does one? And men glorify death and killing in this show (witness Robert and Neddard’s disgusting conversation about killing their first men as if they were talking about their first sexual experience, or Jaime talking about how wonderful killing is). There is no misandry on display, just brutality.
Also, it’s a little rich to be saying the show doesn’t reflect Martin’s work – not only does he write some of the episodes, but he was deeply involved in its creation. In fact, the last episode he wrote has Catelyn’s mad sister breastfeeding her adult son, and a scene of extensive rape when Drogo’s horde sack a village – but the good white girl teaches them that rape is wrong, something they apparently couldn’t have learnt themselves. So I hardly think that he’s immune to the charges or to interpretation of his work through the lens of the show.
May 24, 2012 at 11:44 am
@D. H. Boggs
I don’t think Faustus is attempting to say that “People are searching for this term therefore GoT is misogynist in an absolute sense as determined by God”. He’s saying “Misogyny is a term applied by society, therefore if there we can see a correlation between an event and people referring to it as misogyny then it was misogynist”. He also clarifies in his comment that the correlation supports the relationship, but doesn’t assure causation [1].
To propose an alternative hypothesis that anyone else is welcome to run with: People search for GoT and Misogyny after these particular episodes because they don’t feel that near rape is unreasonable at all and they wonder why any jumped up mathematican blogger would make a fuss.
[1] As XKCD explains it: http://xkcd.com/552/ [2]
[2] There is a 100% correlation between me seeing the opportunity to post a link to that comic and me posting a comment with the link. But the nature of the relationship needs to be studied further.
June 1, 2012 at 1:06 am
Though educated as the four above clearly are, I won’t try to make this overly-florid. I appreciate the fact that you are trying to bring objective analysis of misogyny in GoT to the fore. I think you may be trying to cut the counter-arguments off at the knees by employing a statistical (read: logical, masculine) analysis. Unfortunately, those who above challenge your above assertions are reacting not out of objective analysis, but privilege. Privilege blinds. The show is misogynistic. The world it inhabits is perverted and obscene for all involved. This is no doubt, true to history and true to the books. But the manner in which that world is represented is through 21st century script-writing, direction and camera work. One can represent a rape (if one can justify it morally) without showing the victims tits and ass, gratuitously. Similarly, one can avoid using female characters who enter the screen as a mere physical object, dispossessed of personality/motives/ complexity/ nuance/etc. NOT by history or books but by the very real misogyny of the writer who wrote the script, the producer who directed the production, the camera man who filmed the footage and the network and its executives who permit and indeed profit from the above. Indeed, all men profit from the above. And it is their responsibility (as it is mine) to challenge misogyny where it rears its ugly head. So, Paul, FaustusNotes, and others: please get your heads out of your ass.
June 1, 2012 at 6:57 am
Firstly:
“statistical (read: logical, masculine) analysis”
Are you really comfortable assigning statistics and logic to the masculine gender? Even if you assign intuition to the feminine gender it seems the best you can hope for is making nonsense assignments of types of decision making to particular genders.
Secondly:
“So, Paul, FaustusNotes, and others: please get your heads out of your ass.”
WTF? Did you read the comments above before insulting the writers? Faustusnotes is the original author of the post above and I was describing the manner in which a mathematical correlation could support a hypothesis along with an alternative hypothesis that doesn’t pass a sniff test.
Thirdly, your allegation that D.H. Boggs is responding out of privilege also totally unsupported on the face of his comments. He’s a fan of George R.R. Martin who feels that Faustus is being overly accusatory of the books because he enjoys reading them. Its a fairly frequent type of post on Faustus’s blog [1], so you can certainly accuse of him fanboy-ism if you want (though that would also be a bit of a jump with out much supporting evidence), but leaping to privilege is just deciding that your biases can be used to determine others sins.
Fourthly:
“One can represent a rape (if one can justify it morally)”
Are you seriously suggesting that rape can ever be morally justified? I don’t think even death penalty advocates or supporters of preemptive wars support rape as ever morally justifiable, so I’d be fascinated to hear your argument. Or are you suggesting that depictions of rape need to be morally justified instead of just being an emergent aspect of the story?
Fifthly,
“Indeed, all men profit from the above.”
WTF? I haven’t even watched the show! And are you suggesting that the show has zero women turning a profit off it? Because I’m pretty sure at the least the actresses are drawing a salary.
[1] Second only to me objecting to pretty much anything
June 1, 2012 at 10:13 am
It’s nice to have one of these posts criticized by someone who isn’t an ardent Martin fan, but Jamie your criticisms are largely empty radical feminist rhetoric.
Why is statistical analysis masculine? Can you explain how statistical analysis is masculine without using a logical (read: masculine?) argument? And what is the alternative? That we all just make whatever claims we want based on experience? When you vacate the field of scientific argument that’s all you’re left with: grand claims based on generalizing your own personal experience. This is almost 100% of radical feminist “analysis” of heterosexual sex, and it’s completely and utterly fallacious.
The term “privilege” is another piece of empty rhetoric that I see bandied about all the time in the online feminist scene. Its continuous use as a shorthand for “I don’t like you disagreeing with me” is the reason I have no further interest in online “communities” like Pandagon or feministing. There is no reason why privilege should “blind” people to the wrong they are doing, and claiming that someone is blinded by their privilege is a shorthand way of saying “if you don’t agree with me you’re a bad person.” It’s lazy argument used to excuse the principle from having to present evidence or coherent logic in debate. Taking the books as an example: very few of the most privileged characters in GoT are unaware of the benefits of their privilege. They aren’t blind to the suffering of their inferiors, they think it justified and excusable.
One of my arguments here is that the “perverted and obscene” world depicted in GoT is not “true to history,” as you suggest. I get really sick of this argument about the show. It’s a neckbeard fantasy of history’s misogyny, and in most times and places in the middle ages, people who behaved like many of the characters in GoT would get short shrift indeed.
I definitely need to pull my head out of my arse, but I don’t think you have given any guidance as to where else I should put it.
Paul, when jamie says “One can represent a rape (if one can justify it morally)” I think the “it” here refers to “the representation” (not the rape). The parentheses are supposed to imply that generally representing a rape is not justifiable. I’m sure though that if we look around out there in the ugly wide world we can find someone who thinks rape is morally justifiable: those judges who ordered that Pakistani woman to be raped presumably thought so, and one often hears people say about a particularly nasty criminal “he’s gonna get it in prison” with a certain salubrious tone that suggests that while prison rape may be a bad thing, it’s occasionally excusable. I think this view is quite common in connection with paedophiles, especially. But I don’t think Jamie’s comment means such a thing.
(In fact, I’m willing to bet that the set of people who oppose all war but think it’s cool that paedophiles get raped in prison is not empty!)
June 1, 2012 at 11:57 am
“Paul, when jamie says “One can represent a rape (if one can justify it morally)” I think the “it” here refers to “the representation” (not the rape).”
Yeah, the possibility did occur to me, hence my “Or are you suggesting that depictions of rape need to be morally justified instead of just being an emergent aspect of the story?”
I actually object to the idea that the depiction of rape needs to be morally justified too, though I’m happy to agree that other’s can disagree with that. My reason for objecting to the need to morally justify depictions of rape is that such a test imposes unnecessary limits on free speech. We’re better off agreeing that people that who needlessly show rape scenes are assholes and then allowing the market place of ideas to drive behaviours. [1]
Your point re paedophiles is a good one with regards to people accepting rape. I suspect that if we dug deeper we’d find that rape is regarded only as morally justified in this case because the death penalty wasn’t applied. Not that justifies approving rape, but it does suggest that it’s just reaching for extreme punishments when the choice one is denied, the same people would probably accept torture [3].
[1] Like in the Culture where the lack of laws is backed up with lack of punishment other than social sanction. [2]
[2] I just finished reading Player of Games.
[3] And frankly is turning a blind eye to prison rape anything other than torture?
June 5, 2012 at 3:37 am
Oddly, I meant my criticism to be directed at DH Boggs and Paul, but having mistakenly identified Paul’s comment as belonging to faustusnotes,i seem to have engaged the wrath of someone whose efforts i support(ed).
These notes in response
1. It was a mistake to pinhole statistics and rationality to a gender: I believe this matter has been appropriately addressed above. I would add, though, that faustusnotes has chosen a means of analysis most easily suited to one who has never, bodily, been subjected to sexism. In its effort to engage others who have similar mindset, and hence, analysis, I thought the initial post was interesting and worthwhile.
2. I know nothing of the history, real or imagined, GoT purports to represent. The phrase was a throw away, and the above rightly marks it as trash. You miss the point, though, I think intentionally. Whether or not the world of GoT is meant to be historical, those who author it, in every sense, walk with us in the 21st century. Therefore, their representation of that world is in dialogue with the world they inhabit. The misogyny in their representation is gratuitous and recurrent. It frequently distracts from the plot (see Littlefinger engaging in empty dialogue with two women as they pleasure each other and display their breasts and ass for the camera; see the same female character baring her breasts for the eunuch this week; see Greyjoy’s near rape of his lover on his ship and her utter subjectitude, and the display of her tits for the camera; etc., etc., etc.) In its persistent use of sexist tropes, camera angles and shallow female characters, GoT the show is deeply misogynistic. This argument cannot be countered by speaking of the show’s 3-4 dynamic, unexploited female characters, though they are excellent.
3. Privilege is not an empty word. It may well be radical. It may well be overly vague. But it is not empty. Let’s put more of a point on it. When you–faustusnotes or paul or millions of other men–watch the show you do so from the vantage of one who does not directly suffer from representing women as objects. That is a privilege. I could go on at length, and I imagine I will be forced to.
4. The representation of a rape on a screen is something that can be reasonably defended as free speech. But that freedom should not be taken lightly, nor perhaps afforded to those who fail to consider what such representation does to those who have been raped. Many of the rape scenes on GoT place more emphasis on revealing the victims body as it is being raped than representing rape as a vicious act of torture and instrument of oppression. In doing so, the subjectivity of the authors (camera man, director, writer, and actors) is directly aligned with the perpetrators of this torture. We, as viewers, are complicit. As a straight man, I am even conditioned to think that this is sexy and good. I would have a considerably harder time being turned on by a rape scene if the camera focused on the woman’s eyes while it was being done.
Furthermore, when I watch a rape scene, I am not triggered to remember any occasion on which I was raped. Women I love are. Any one who calls the manner in which rape is represented in GoT “free speech” should have a similar understanding of the pain their decisions cause, particularly when their decisions involve pornographic choices.
June 5, 2012 at 10:26 am
Jamie, thanks for the clarifications but you’re still talking in rhetoric rather than using simple language that helps move debate forward.
1. How is statistics “most easily suited to one who has never, bodily, been subjected to sexism”? This is just another woolly workaround on your previous opinion, and it’s just as empty of content. Are you saying women can’t do maths? How do you square this with the historical experience of women in maths? In the 18th and 19th centuries it was one of the few areas of science women were encouraged to practice in. I suggest you read The Mind Has No Sex?: Women in the Origins of Modern Science for an insightful description of both the history of women in mathematics and biology, and the pitfalls of ascribing gender essentialism to fields of science.
2. My original post on the show – the one that gets all the hits – went through all this in detail. You aren’t talking to a blank slate here!
3. Yes it is. This topic deserves a post by itself, though it runs the risk that I’ll run afoul of the feminist blogosphere, which could have dangerous consequences for my blog. Stay tuned.
4. I hate the word “triggered.” “Triggering” and the language of psychosocial distress associated with it reduces all political debate to a workshop of people’s personal issues, and leads to the unedifying spectacle of groups of people all carefully trying not to talk about sensitive issues directly lest they upset each other. It – along with the use of “privilege” as a form of identity rather than a structural relationship between social groups – reduces all political conflict to the level of personal interactions. Such reductionism always gives the power to those with the loudest voices and the biggest emotional claims – usually, in the case of the feminist blogosphere, sneering middle- or upper-class patricians like the crew at Shakey’s place. It’s the creeping americanization of political discourse, turning all debate about radical political solutions into a workshop about our personal emotions. People should keep their personal psychological and emotional problems out of political interactions, regardless of serious and tragic the causes of those interactions may have been. In place of claiming to be “triggered” by the site of a woman’s naked breasts, we should try to behave more like Primo Levi, who survived a Nazi concentration camp but managed to put his personal issues with Germans and the German language aside for both his professional and political purposes. And no, keeping your personal issues out of political fora is not the same as ignoring the personal aspects of the political struggle. The personal is political, but that doesn’t mean we all have to tread around each other on eggshells while talking about those political issues.
Which doesn’t mean we don’t have to object to rape and misogyny on TV either, but rather than inventing a special politicized way of saying “it offends me” (“I was triggered”) that adds false psychotherapeutic weight to our personal opinions, we should just say “it offends me” and go from there.