New York Times article decides that Game of Thrones is only for men

Pin it

Instead, the author suggests — and I'm not kidding here, because if I were trying to make a joke and this thought crossed my mind, I'd think, "No, that's too ridiculous" — that the ladies might be better off watching Sex and the City reruns instead. Because remembering all those names is hard! (Still not kidding.) The writer, Ginia Bellafante, doesn't really have a high opinion of the show overall; she writes that when HBO's programming strays away from larger social critique, it becomes tacky (like True Blood). Though she cites Rome as one of the non-tacky ones, and as much as I loved that show, I just can't sign on.

But here's when she really gets to the good part, about how women just aren't interested in this crap:

The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.

Haven't we abandoned the idea that only men are interested in sci-fi and fantasy and women only enjoy reading, like, books about sad Irish families or bodice rippers? If we're speaking anecdotally, as Bellafante does, then I watched the show last night at a small Game of Thrones party thrown by a woman, with a group evenly divided by gender. And while the show had some issues (more about which in my next installment of TV Diaries), the women did not leave the room en masse out of boredom. But maybe they were all lesbians, or men dressed as women in some sort of Some Like It Hot situation — Ginia?