I firmly believe that craft is a feminist issue. On a personal level, it’s amazing that every time I pick up my needles and what essentially amounts to a bit of string, I am connecting with women across thousands of years, as well as those in my life now; my aunt taught me to knit, my grandma taught me to crochet and another friend encouraged me to learn to embroider. I can take something made two hundred years ago and give it a modern spin. As someone who likes being artistic, but was never very good at traditional ‘art’, craft allows me to express myself.

Yet I know that I am different from my grandma, her mother and so on. I do not make things out of financial necessity or to ensure that my family is clothed – it is often significantly cheaper to go out and buy a pair of socks or a jumper than what it costs to buy yarn or fabric, not to mention how long it takes to make something. And that’s where feminism comes in: I make things because I can. Because knitting or sewing something gives me satisfaction. Because of the struggle of women before me and changes that they brought to society, I am not eternally pregnant or chained to a kitchen sink- I have free time, something that women didn’t have much of. I have disposable income… if I want a £20 ball of yarn or some amazing threads, I can have them and I can make something utterly frivolous with them if I so choose, too. At the moment, I am stitching tea towels with birds and bugs from Victorian natural history drawings to sell at a local craft fair. One of the joys of having a skill is seeing how you can use it to interpret it. Want to cross stitch Judge Judy? Go for it!

I see no coincidence in the fact that me learning to knit and becoming a feminist are linked. My first knitting book was Stitch and Bitch by Debbie Stoller, which lead me to read Bust magazine. Although I had always been brought up to think like a feminist, I was now, in my early twenties, becoming an active feminist. I wanted to learn more about my place in the world and how I could make that better. And I know that it’s the same for a lot of women. Crafting is a gateway to this. (That’s not to say I think all crafting is feminist. I think a lot of it is packaging traditional ideas of women in twee, Cath Kidston-esque clothing, trying to make money off the back of all things ‘vintage’. Solution to this: just read the blogs you like and do your own thing. As always, be discerning in your crafting!) Because of my love of all things textile, I learned to be a better person and became braver in defending what I believe in. Yes, I do get ‘old lady’ jibes, but those tend to come from the misogynist idiot I happen to share a staffroom with. And I usually come back with that there’s nothing wrong in being an old lady, if it makes me happy. After all, I don’t tell him how to live his life.

There are loads of plus sides to having a skill- I can make clothes that fit and flatter me, rather than being dictated to as to what shops think I should wear- I have a collection of really cool shawls and socks that are perfect for me. Vogue may say that an orange, cabled hoodie is so 2006, but if I want one, I can make one. I also have the satisfaction that I know that if the world ends/zombies take over/the second Ice Age cometh, I will have plenty of knit wear and pretty things to make life bearable, should I survive. On a more down-to-earth note, I also know that gifts I give are unique and that they haven’t been made by toddlers in a sweatshop. I know where every stitch has come from and I’m sticking two thumbs up at what capitalism says I should do (although this means that I have to start making Christmas presents insanely early in the year, due to my over-achieving nature.)

There was an article in the Huffington Post recently decrying the fact that ‘tough gals’ in feminism no longer exist, and crafting (specifically knitting) was listed as one of the activities that was not considered ‘tough’. I consider myself relatively streetwise – I grew up in inner city Leeds, went to a very difficult school and had by no means a privileged time growing up. But because I knit, I am not, apparently, tough. I think that women are re-embracing crafting because we live in a world where so much is out of our control- the world is not going to become a better place overnight and women are still marginalised in some areas of everyday life. So it is natural to want to take control somewhere, whether that is mastering the perfect satin stitch or being really good at motorcycle maintenance. Your mileage (and activity of choice) may vary.

• Stephanie is a teacher by day, and a writer/crafter/blogger by night. She’s a young old lady who lives by the sea, reads voraciously and drinks a heck of a lot of tea. Her latest project, Ladies In Monochrome, is an online archive of ‘lost’ or forgotten vintage photographs of women sourced from flea markets and antique shops. All the images in this post are her own work.

What’s been almost more interesting than the content of the show itself has been the response from critics. Ginia Bellafante kicked things off in the New York Times, labelling the show as “boy-fiction”, and suggesting that the standard HBO sex has been thrown in to appeal to otherwise disinterested female viewers. Because obviously boys like swords and fighting and girls like sex and drama. That’s how gender works, right? Wait, no.

Annalee Newitz at io9 argues back, but instead of dismissing the whole notion of gender essentialism and stories that are “for” one gender or another Newitz takes it the other way, arguing that this is clearly a tale for women. Oh, wait, perhaps it’s a satirical exaggeration of the idea, to highlight the ridiculousness of Bellafante’s review. Well, hopefully it is. It still doesn’t get around the issue of thinking people of any particular gender are wired to want certain things from their fiction, though.

Ilana Teitalbaum weighs in with a more straightforward critique of the ways in which Bellafante’s review is terribly misguided over at the Huffington Post, and probably provides the most sensible view on the discussion. I’m going to quote her here, because what she says is worth repeating for anyone too lazy to click through the links.

The characterization of fantasy as “boy fiction” is offensive to the genre and offensive to women. That we for the most part will only read what Oprah has picked, and especially if a woman wrote it, is a stereotype that is not only demeaning to women — it is also untrue…

…When we categorize books as “boy fiction” and “girl fiction” it’s just another way to promote gender stereotyping. It is predicated on the assumption that people will only read books that reflect their personal experiences, so therefore women will only deign to read about dating, shopping, and kitchen intrigues.

Okay, with that said, on to the show itself. Trying to avoid spoilers here, but apologies if any slip through. As an adaptation, it’s generally pretty damn solid. There are the inevitable minor changes that come with translating a work to screen, but there are none of the glaring alterations that make you stand up and go “They did what? But that’s totally out of character! Did they even read the books?” The casting is good (Harry Lloyd as Viserys Targaryen is palpably creepy and unpleasant), the costumes are well done, and Arya Stark and Tyrion Lannister already shine as the best characters. Arya Stark gets painfully little screen time though, which leads to the first issue with the show.

Danaerys Targaryen being blonder than thou.

The female characters, as of the first episode, do not get much representation. Hopefully this is a temporary thing and, like the books, we’ll get to see Arya, Danaerys, Catelyn etc grow into being hugely important badasses that sit firmly at the centre of key plot points. But right now they’re just not there. They get scarcely any screen time, and when they are shown they’re mostly cast in passive, receptive roles. Tyrion Lannister (Peter Dinklage) sleeps with a prostitute (because it’s not a HBO show without frequent sex and nudity) who gets more lines than Cersei Lannister and Arya Stark put together.

And Danaerys… Okay, this falls on the book as much as the adaptation, and it’s hard to see a way they could have worked around it, but her initial role as a tool for her brother’s plans, without any say in her own life, feels very awkward. Two scenes in particular are awkward enough to be uncomfortable to watch. First there’s the close up of a nude Danaerys (Emilia Clarke) being examined by her brother (and bear in mind this is a character written as being just thirteen in the book, though thankfully HBO seem to have aged her up a bit), to make sure she’s up to scratch for bartering away in exchange for an army, with oddly lingering shots of nipples and buttocks. This scene, which really should convey “look how bloody nasty and unpleasant Viserys is,” instead comes off more as “and here are some breasts, do you like them?”

And then we have the consummation of the marriage to the head of said army, Khal Drogo of the Dothraki, a scene that is shown to be even more upsetting and non-consensual than it was originally written. And it was pretty damn bad to start with. The scene is at least short, and cuts away before anything graphic, but it does raise the question of why someone at HBO thought “Hmm, what this scene needs is to be made a bit more rapey.” Seriously, there is pretty much never a time when this is a good thing for a piece of fiction. Ever.

Still, as said, there is hope that the characters will develop along the same lines they did in the book, so this issue might be a passing one. The second problem, though, is less likely to improve with future episodes.

Jaime Lannister (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), doing his best Douchey Prince Charming act.

The second issue, you see, is the unfortunate race failure. You could argue that it’s just being faithful to the books, but honestly that’s not much of an excuse. Everyone is oh so very white, and everyone we’re told is attractive (Cersei, Jaime, Danaerys) is oh so very blonde to boot. The closest we get to non-white characters are the slightly-tanned Dothraki horsemen with whom Viserys is trying to forge an alliance. And, of course, they’re depicted as crude savages. And I don’t mean “they’re a bit misunderstood” – we’re talking full on “these people are barbaric, they are not like us.” We see two men fighting over a woman, one literally pushing the other away mid-thrust and hopping on himself (which is a whole other pile of issues), before blades are drawn and someone gets disembowelled. True to the books it may be, but there’s a definite problem with a world where everyone is divided into groups of “white people” and “savages”.

Issues aside, it’s worth sticking with. If nothing else it’ll be interesting to see how they handle the events that happen to Eddard Stark, what with Sean Bean being their big name cast member.