A Queen’s Duty

The most essential ingredient justifying the existence of the ‘social justice’ movement has to be the concept of privilege. It underpins the movement’s core reason of being—to dismantle the supposed advantages inherent to those who have equality and who have striven to promote it worldwide.

Yet time and time again we notice this not to be true. As reality kicks in, it is clear that social justice advocates just want to appropriate ‘privilege’ for themselves, rather than abolish it. They favour inequality just as long as they are at the top of the hierarchy.

As the modern stories they are, TV shows often spark interesting and philosophical discussions between people. As such, it is interesting to see what social justice activists have to say about the first episode of Game of Thrones prequel House of the Dragon, which features an especially violent birth scene. 

Both showrunner Miguel Sapochnik and actress Siane Brook have said that despite being filmed in 2019, the scene feels “more timely and impactful than ever” following the US Supreme Court’s recent overruling of Roe v. Wade. It deals with men’s presumed historical dominance over women by presenting the mother, in this case, the queen consort, as a mere “vessel for childbirth” whose life or death falls to the decision of the king: a decision predicated on his “eternal quest for power and status.”

To social justice activists, this is of course symbolic of the enduring oppression of women. To Brook, who plays the queen in question, the scene’s relevance to today rings true: 

“It’s so vulnerable to think [about being] at the mercy of a man’s decision … You think you’ve made this huge leap forward, with women being able to make decisions about their own bodies. It’s quite shocking, that, sadly, there is some similarity between [now] and centuries ago.”

But is the scene really representative of this? In this particular story, the queen is oozing with privilege. She is the second most powerful person in the kingdom, surrounded by an army of servants to cater to her every need, want, or desire. She is one of the few people with access to the mediaeval version of physicians and midwives, however primitive. She lives a much better life than any of the majority of peasants that are born in Westeros. And yet her only duty is to provide an heir: a pivotal role in a feudal society, especially when a failure to do so can lead to civil unrest and wars where countless people will die a horrible death.

Instead of pointing out all of this, the social justice activists believe the queen should have been allowed more privilege, however arbitrary. They want to remove one of the only duties she is required to perform in exchange for the life of luxury and comfort granted to her by the nature of her marriage. Had the king been forced to join a military campaign and lose his life, it would not have been called sexism. It would have been the king’s duty to lead his men into battle. 

In fact, if the king had refused, similar to how Joffrey refused to defend King’s Landing, the would-be audience condemned his cowardice and refusal to perform his role.

Clearly, in the mind of the social justice disciples, the groups they advocate for should be free of any duty and all responsibility. Meanwhile, the prevalence of any such requirements, even for a queen, must be rooted in sexism. This sad reality isn’t limited to fictional shows but transcends into real life.

Recently a video of Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin surfaced on the web where she was twerking at a party. Clearly intoxicated, many people were naturally upset about Marin’s actions and demanded better of their prime minister. But this caused a backlash from many left-leaning people on Twitter, who claimed that the world leader should be able to dance like everyone else.

Unfortunately, she is not like everyone else, is she? She is a person oozing with privilege. She has a personal driver, a security detail, the ability to avoid being locked in her home during the pandemic, a fat retirement fund, and the ability to change the nation's laws.

In exchange for all this, it is her duty to behave in a manner appropriate to her position, a responsibility similar to that critical Americans expected from president Trump when they  demanded that he “act presidential.” 

Unfortunately, when a left-leaning woman is involved, the concept of ‘acting like a prime minister doesn't seem to register, and criticising her will swiftly bring forth accusations of sexism.

One could also claim that the duties and standards enforced on our leaders—a king acting for the ‘good of the realm’ or a president ‘acting presidential’—is to remind the people in power, at least at a subconscious level, that they are not all-powerful and that there are limits to what they can and shouldn’t do.

Unfortunately, it seems that the same people who claim they want to dismantle privilege are cementing even more privilege to the people in power as long as its people are ‘on their side’. Therefore, the pedigree of person upheld by the identity politics game is embellished in the same privilege they profess to despise.

In their eyes, the people in charge should have no duties and no responsibilities, paving the way for potential tyranny.

A Romanian persecuted for trying to put smiles on people’s faces. Took over This Week in Stupid (TWIS) video series.

Follow RomanianTVee on YouTube.