409 replies to this topic

[salt]

Evanmitchelle, I don't think the decision to arrest Tyrion was made "emotionally".  It was just a calm, collected, horrible decision.

[WindOfWinter]

Not trying to troll. I was interested in how the Cat-ers would justify the slaughter of an unarmed innocent disabled person. Now I know. Yes, she went crazy. Of course she did; she's an over-emotional wreck by her third POV chapter and never looks back. When she finally lost her mind she resorted to her instincts; which were of a cruel and self destructive nature. This is just my view, I've probably expressed it sufficiently and at this point we'll have to agree to disagree. All I wanted to do was express my views and joke around a bit, I'm not taking anything personally and would hope no one else is.

I'm going to agree with the poster who said that they were pissed when she came back. The one saving grace is that she's yet to have a POV and I hope the rest of her character's arc is told through Jamie/Brienne and not Lady Stonehead. Ironically, the way she does come back actually makes me interested in her character for the first time in the series. When I finished aSoS I called my friend and said, 'Holy shit, I'm actually anticipating a Cat chapter!' and was told there were no more up to the end of book five. Once again Cat had failed to deliver. At this point I'm just sick of her, and with Jon potentially being revived in a similar fashion I'd rather experience the second life through him instead of Cat.

[salt]

WindOfWinter, on 24 June 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Yes, she went crazy. Of course she did; she's an over-emotional wreck by her third POV chapter and never looks back. When she finally lost her mind she resorted to her instincts; which were of a cruel and self destructive nature.

Somestimes I think the accusations of anti-Cat fervor are exaggerated, but then I read a post like this.  There are plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of justified criticisms of Cat's actions and decisions, but this is pretty overblown.

Edited by salt, 24 June 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[bloodymime]

WindOfWinter, on 24 June 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Not trying to troll. I was interested in how the Cat-ers would justify the slaughter of an unarmed innocent disabled person. Now I know. Yes, she went crazy. Of course she did; she's an over-emotional wreck by her third POV chapter and never looks back. When she finally lost her mind she resorted to her instincts; which were of a cruel and self destructive nature.

So you are being serious. That's interesting. I' ve never heard someone blame a person for not only going insane after virtually her entire fucking family has been murderd with the sole survivor married to the Imp but now she's also personally responsible for how her insanity manifests. That is even more interesting and I have never heard anything like that before. That a person is actually responsible for how their uncontrollable madness manifests.

[WindOfWinter]

butterbumps!, on 24 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

I don't like the idea of anyone killing innocents, especially a defenseless individual with mental disability.   However, Cat's line of thinking was not to attack Jinglebell initially, but Walder Frey:

I understand her thought/non-thought-insanity process, I just think she's compromising every value she so piously holds. When she made the threat she still had her cognitive abilities; did she intend to follow through at that time? Was it a bluff that turned real when she lost her mind? I don't think so. If a husband tells his wife, in a room full of people, he's going to shoot her if he cheats on him, can a case be made for anything other than pre-meditated murder when he follows through? But, I'm not a court and I don't need standards of proof to pass my judgements or let people go on technicalities. There are posters who think she's The Mother returned; this woman has little mercy. She'd rather make good on a threat than spare his life, she's blind to anything but vengeance at that point. At least for once in her life her words were more than wind, is the only redeeming part I got out of that.

butterbumps!, on 24 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

I think that this is unsavory, but hardly equitable to Aerys and others.  Aerys planned out torment and torture for sick pleasure, insanity or not.   His were hardly crimes of the moment or opportunity. I'm not excusing the behavior, but wanted to point out the nuance here that bold comparisons to Aerys' madness just doesn't give justice to.

That's true; I intended to be a bit of a stick and probably cheapened the defence of my view point in doing so.

[Royce Bolton]

I am not a fan of Cat's...

But to be fair, (and this is in response to a line of argument quite a few pages back at this point), Cat begs Ned NOT to go to KL after Bran is injured... begs... and I also think this would have been the only excuss Robert might have accepted in his returning the hand of the king station...

So, if Ned would have listened, much of the trouble avoided.  Kind of surprised he didn't, he never wanted to go, at all, in the first place.

Having said that, I've always disliked her; I think from the same chapter as I just mentioned, I thought she suffered a psychotic break (no sleep, headaches, irrational behavior) and was later visited time to time with moments of lucidity; but due to her station no one questioned her mental state and for the most part went along with her.  This is just my take.

[dark sister]

WindOfWinter, on 24 June 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

So if you're insane nothing you do is your responsibility. It 100% absolves all actions? Poor Areys was killed for no reason by that logic. How can people blame him? Don't besmirch the reputation of poor Ramsey Bolton, he's clearly insane and can't be held accountable for the women he rapes and flays. Would if mine self were a leftist liberal judge, but alas, I am not a court of law. I don't need to consider a person's mental state; as a reader I see cause and effect and am free to come to mine own conclusions. All I was saying was that it is very much in line with the type of person she is; her MO when upset, often times, is to find a weaker person and exact revenge.

I've been reading your posts, and frankly, you don't come off well.  Your "arguments" are pretty weak, but I've let other people shoot them down.  You keep going on about Jinglebell, the lackwit who was brought out as an insult to Robb and everyone in his party.  As other people have already said, Catelyn had a complete break with reality when she saw Roose step up and put his sword in Robb's chest.

Aerys was a king.  Catelyn was not a king.  Rhaegar was planning to call a great council to remove him because he realized how insane his father had gotten.
Ramsay Bolton is not insane, he is a sociopath.  Someone born without empathy, remorse, or a conscience.  A Ted Bundy of that time, not someone who had gone mad from grief.
And how is it that she has an "MO" of targeting a weaker person when she's upset?  When she found out that her sons were dead and she was supping with Brienne, did she target her and exact revenge?  Give us some concrete examples.

Yes, Catelyn has flaws, just like everyone else.  But I've never seen the same virulence of hatred directed towards anyone else in this series, especially a man.  All in all, I think she is a different kind of highborn lady, one who is brave, shrewd, and not afraid to do things by herself instead of telling someone else to do it for her.  That makes her too much of a man for you detractors.  And that, THAT she can never be.

[The Fallen]

I don't think criticism of whom she killed is legitimate. It's simple. Her last remaining son is being killed and she grabbed someone, anyone, to use as a bargaining tool for her son's life. When they ended killing her son anyway, and were coming for her, she killed her hostage. Whether he was mentally disabled is irrelevant. It was the only vengeance she could get. Had she hesitated, she would've been killed and the moment for some level of retribution would've passed. It strength for her to kill her hostage. Many others would not have had it in them to go through with their threat and they would've forfeited their life without causing any kind of pain to the offenders. At that point, that was pretty much what it was about, getting back at the Freys in any way that she could. It was the anger of a parent who has watched their child get killed in front of them that killed Aegon Frey.

[dark sister]

WindOfWinter, on 24 June 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Not trying to troll. I was interested in how the Cat-ers would justify the slaughter of an unarmed innocent disabled person. Now I know. Yes, she went crazy. Of course she did; she's an over-emotional wreck by her third POV chapter and never looks back. When she finally lost her mind she resorted to her instincts; which were of a cruel and self destructive nature. This is just my view, I've probably expressed it sufficiently and at this point we'll have to agree to disagree. All I wanted to do was express my views and joke around a bit, I'm not taking anything personally and would hope no one else is.

I'm going to agree with the poster who said that they were pissed when she came back. The one saving grace is that she's yet to have a POV and I hope the rest of her character's arc is told through Jamie/Brienne and not Lady Stonehead. Ironically, the way she does come back actually makes me interested in her character for the first time in the series. When I finished aSoS I called my friend and said, 'Holy shit, I'm actually anticipating a Cat chapter!' and was told there were no more up to the end of book five. Once again Cat had failed to deliver. At this point I'm just sick of her, and with Jon potentially being revived in a similar fashion I'd rather experience the second life through him instead of Cat.

I doubt you are aware of how misogynistic you SEEM to sound.  Your train of thought just sounds insane!  How can you actually think this??  It's so cruel and one-sided.  There are so many Cat lovers who admit she has flaws, but you're tearing her character a new a**hole.  I don't think you could look at her character in a fair light even if you wanted to.

Edited by dark sister, 24 June 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[butterbumps!]

WindOfWinter, on 24 June 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

I understand her thought/non-thought-insanity process, I just think she's compromising every value she so piously holds. When she made the threat she still had her cognitive abilities; did she intend to follow through at that time? Was it a bluff that turned real when she lost her mind? I don't think so. If a husband tells his wife, in a room full of people, he's going to shoot her if he cheats on him, can a case be made for anything other than pre-meditated murder when he follows through? But, I'm not a court and I don't need standards of proof to pass my judgements or let people go on technicalities. There are posters who think she's The Mother returned; this woman has little mercy. She'd rather make good on a threat than spare his life, she's blind to anything but vengeance at that point. At least for once in her life her words were more than wind, is the only redeeming part I got out of that.

That's true; I intended to be a bit of a stick and probably cheapened the defence of my view point in doing so.

I hear what you're saying.  In this particular instance I really read her actions as a desperate proxy for Walder (her true intended target), and more importantly, the setup as a last ditch effort to try to save her son.  This does not excuse the objective fact that she did, ultimately, murder an innocent in her grief.  But I do, personally, find it forgivable given how it came together unintentionally, and because it's not cold vengeance but testimony to her extreme anguish-- as you note, it compromises every value she holds, and she wouldn't do something like this if not for the egregiousness of what's going on around her.

I think that you and others highlight a valid issue though- that is, the fact that some of Cat's actions contribute to bad things happening in a purely objective sense.  I think sometimes the wires get a bit crossed in discussing this, though.   Yes, certain of Cat's choices have led to disastrous results, but for me, what's important here is intention.  I think Cat has always had the best intentions when she makes a decision, and I strongly believe that her choices are rationally constructed and clear-headed according to the knowledge she has.  Yes, the fact that she took Tyrion from the inn led to problems, but what's important for me is the fact that she had no intention to arrest him at the outset, and only did so when her cover was blown and she had little choice but to detain him else risk inciting Lannister suspicions further and endangering her family in KL.   To be honest, when I first read, I remember thinking (as Tyrion does, I'd like to point out) that Cat's course of action here was quick-thinking and clever.  Until you read ahead and find out how this all plays out, it's not clear that her actions will butterfly-effect out so poorly, at least it wasn't to me.   Don't get me wrong- I hand't thought Tyrion had anything to do with Bran's murder attempt-- but all the same, who would have guessed how this would have worked out?

So I guess for me, I think there's a difference between acknowledging that Cat's actions have led to poor consequences and looking at her mistakes as negative character flaws.  This is why I find Cat the most tragic-- she unwittingly contributes to her and those she loves downfalls, but not because of malice, weakness, greed, intention, stupidity or irrationality.  All of her choices are rooted in what knowledge she has and follows logic, and the disconnect here is that we, the readers, might grow frustrated because we have a lot more perspective on the situation than she does.   I think that this disconnect makes her decisions tragic, but by no means can I call them stupid, given how she handles herself and formulates logical plans.

[WindOfWinter]

If I hated her for no reason other than she's a woman, why would I enjoy almost every other female POV character? If anything, it's over-zealous religious types whose actions are constantly in defiance of their words that irks me. They're not arguments, simply my observations and opinions. I stated an opinion, people said I was wrong, I posted stuff from the books that led me to my opinions. When I get my copy of aGoT back from a friend I'll do a re-read of all her chapters. To assume I have hatred towards a fictional character is amusing to me; I just find her to be the worst POV, was glad to be rid of her, and I enjoyed discussing her character with people who have different views as no one in my reading circle likes her.

[TerraPrime]

Re: What a Flayed Man Holds

What a Flayed Man Holds, on 24 June 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

If I'm reading this post correctly, this thread is 2 days old and already 15 pages long.  I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Catelyn is horrible.

So, if a thread is popular, it means that the character must be a horrible one?

Can you please take your astounding logic and clear it out of our forums, please? We have enough stupid arguments around here and we are not interested in purchasing some more.


Re: David Selig

David Selig, on 24 June 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

BTW, I am amazed how anyone can blame Cat for Jinglebell when she clearly was insane at this point. She raked her own face with her nails like a minute later...

Ah, but when a man faces insurmountable odds and not back down, that's bravery, not insanity. When a woman faces a room full of armed men who had already killed her retinues, friends, and family, and does the only thing she can, she's just a horrible character. No, no bravery at all, just pure XX chromosome craziness.


Re: Damar

Damar, on 24 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

someone who basically for her sake abandoned Winterfell and any chance on family and lands for life long servitude in a icy hell.

You do realize that Benjen volunteered for the Wall, right? And that throughout the North, it was not uncommon for second or third sons to volunteer for the duty, because there's just not enough land/resource to go to all the sons in the family. They either take the Black, or they travel South to seek their own fortunes. Jon was not made to choose something that is so extraordinarily unfair - it was a choice that all legitimate sons get to make, too. So it is rather odd, and unjustified, to say that it is unfair to make Jon go to the wall, when that is a perfectly plausible fate for any son who does not stand to inherit the household.




Re: Evamitchelle

Evamitchelle, on 24 June 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

So many people keep calling Cat over-emotional, when to me she's clearly one of the most rational persons in Westeros.

Ah, but Cat is emotional in a way that some people don't approve of. Tyrion is obviously VERY emotional, considering his obsession with Shae/Tysha, and he certainly lets his emotion get in to the way of many of his decisions. But does he get lambasted for "being emotional"? No, of course not.

Ned is very emotional, as well, because he lets his love for Lyanna govern a lot of his actions, to the tune of putting his own family's well-being at risk. Ned's also very emotional about children, where he chastised his King for trying to assassinate Daenerys, and in letting Cercei go for the sakes of her children. That second decision was particularly brilliant, wasn't it?

Jon is very emotional, too. See how he's ready to abandon his oath, not once, but a few times? First when he heard that Ned was killed. Second when he heard that Winterfell had fallen. And then, we all know what happened in Dance. But not only those incidents, his interaction with Sam and his other NW friends were all based on his emotions, not rational thinking.

Oh, and Jaime. Yes, continuing an incestuous relationship with your fraternal twin is tremendously logical and rational, isn't it? I mean, I certainly rarely hear Jaime denounced on this board for being emotional - i.e.  him letting his love for Cercei governing his actions.

Compared to all this, clearly, a mother's fierce defense of her children's future is clearly, highly emotional in a way that is worthy of criticism and condemnation. Is this logic not clear to you?

Quote

The Tyrion incident for example, is a spur-of-the-moment decision, but not one carried out because she over-reacted. The Lannisters tried to murder Bran, twice. Cersei is aware of the first attempt, because she was there when Jaime flung him out the window, but not of the second attempt. The last news she's heard, Bran was in a coma, and most people expected him never to wake up. At the same time, Ned Stark is busy doing all kinds of research in the city, and asking Pycelle to give him the documents Jon Arryn was working on. Next thing you know, Catelyn Stark shows up at the Crossroads Inn after having visited King's Landing in secret, and is spotted by Tyrion who makes sure to tell everyone that it's Catelyn Stark sitting in the corner. If Tyrion goes back to KL and tells his family Lady Stark had been to the city incognito, the Lannisters will most likely assume that Bran did wake up and told his mom he saw the twins fucking in a tower, and that Jaime tried to kill him as a result. So basically Catelyn is trying to do damage control : now that she's been discovered there's nothing she can do except take Tyrion as hostage to try and use it as leverage for her family's safety (unluckily for her Tywin doesn't give much shit about his dwarf son).

I have to quibble a bit here.

I don't believe that Ned even knew the truth about the incest when he met Cat, so he couldn't have told Cat about it. Therefore, that part was not a component to Cat's decision. What is true, though, is that if her travel to KL was known to the Lannisters (via Tyrion), it would have raised suspicion about Bran's state. But I don't think that was in the text. In the text, Cat saw Tyrion enter the inn and she started to feel trapped. She was convinced, at this point, that Tyrion was behind the assassination attempt on Bran's life, so she believed that he is a grave danger to her and her family. I think that's probably the dominant reason why she seized the chance to pre-emptivly strike out and capture him before he had a chance to harm her.

[Lyanna Stark]

Maxpey, on 24 June 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

In all seriousness, what I found the most objectionable about Lady Stark was her unconscionable treatment of Jon.
Regardless of how she felt about him personally, he was Ned's son (at least she thought so) and the brother of her own children. They all loved him (well, maybe not Sansa so much) and for their sake she should have made more of an effort to accept him.

She could not have treated Jon worse even if he was the proverbial "red-headed step-son."

Why is this constantly brought up? Cat actually treated Jon far better than was the norm for bastards. Cersei remarks on this and thinks Cat must be a grey little mouse to not kick up a stink about something so blatantly insulting to her. Yet somehow, posters constantly think Cat should turn into some sort of Virgin Mary or the North and love all and sundry.

Jon was an insult to her and her family.
Her was a constant reminder of how Ned had defiled their marriage.
Jon could have been fostered with the Cerwyns half a ride away, but Ned nixed that.
When Cat asked about Jon's father, Ned intimidated her into silence.

If someone should be blamed for Cat and Jon being forced together, it was Ned. Cat was cold and distant, but she was not emotionally abusive apart from the once she lashed out at him, and for that she feels guilt.

The Fallen, on 24 June 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

At that point, that was pretty much what it was about, getting back at the Freys in any way that she could. It was the anger of a parent who has watched their child get killed in front of them that killed Aegon Frey.

More interestingly, I wonder if the poster who complained against it hates UnCat more than Cat? He must do, since she is all about killing the Freys.

Somehow it seems people feel UnCat is "cool" though, so then it's all good apparently.

Edited by Lyanna Stark, 24 June 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[WindOfWinter]

I was also not a fan of the wicked step mother in Cinderella, if anyone needed further proof of my misogyny.

TerraPrime, on 24 June 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Ah, but when a man faces insurmountable odds and not back down, that's bravery, not insanity. When a woman faces a room full of armed men who had already killed her retinues, friends, and family, and does the only thing she can, she's just a horrible character. No, no bravery at all, just pure XX chromosome craziness.

Ah, forgive me, but I'm a misogynistic woman hater whose false notion of bravery would be something like rushing Frey and dying in the attempt to kill him, as opposed to your real bravado of brutally executing an unarmed handicapped hostage. I see now why I'm wrong, I was stupid. I'm unarmed, please don't execute me.

This book is full of strong, brave women; Dany, Arya, Asha, Brienne, Mormont, Melissandra, any woman ever born in Dorne, just to name a few. I'd be surprised if a series that is about a 13 year old girl rising to power will attract many misogynists (not doubting those fans exist).

This is funny to me because I initially liked her, until the girl (!!!omg) I was reading the series with turned me against her somewhere around aCoK. Since she's so smart and I respect her opinion I eventually agreed with her. But to be fair, she is also a woman hating misogynist.

[salt]

TerraPrime, on 24 June 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Ah, but when a man faces insurmountable odds and not back down, that's bravery, not insanity. When a woman faces a room full of armed men who had already killed her retinues, friends, and family, and does the only thing she can, she's just a horrible character. No, no bravery at all, just pure XX chromosome craziness.

Uh, lets try to avoid jamming accusations of sexism into everything, the univese doesn't revolve around what someone has between their legs.  I highly doubt any rational reader would call a man slitting the throat of a mentally disabled peson 'brave'.  It wasn't bave, but it wasn't an act based on cruelty either.  It was desperation, a last ditch attempt to buy the life of her son.  Everything Cat had done since Wintefell, though often misguided and ineffective, was an attempt to protect her family, and this was the last one she made before becoming Stoneheart.  Was it cruel to slit his throat even after Robb had been killed?  Absolutely, though its easy to understand why she tried to take one last bit of vengeance.  I personally think "Robb had broken his word, but Catelyn kept hers" is one of the most memorable lines from that book.

[Fantôme]

salt, on 24 June 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Uh, lets try to avoid jamming accusations of sexism into everything, the univese doesn't revolve around what someone has between their legs.  I highly doubt any rational reader would call a man slitting the throat of a mentally disabled peson 'brave'.  It wasn't bave, but it wasn't an act based on cruelty either.  It was desperation, a last ditch attempt to buy the life of her son.  Everything Cat had done since Wintefell, though often misguided and ineffective, was an attempt to protect her family, and this was the last one she made before becoming Stoneheart.  Was it cruel to slit his throat even after Robb had been killed?  Absolutely, though its easy to understand why she tried to take one last bit of vengeance.  I personally think "Robb had broken his word, but Catelyn kept hers" is one of the most memorable lines from that book.

  Wisdom.

[Lyanna Stark]

WindOfWinter, on 24 June 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

I was also not a fan of the wicked step mother in Cinderella, if anyone needed further proof of my misogyny.

Cat isn't a wicked step mother. I'm not sure how anyone keeps going on about this. It's been explained over and over and over again, yet somehow people hold Cat on the same level as Gregor Clegane while the only thing she ever did was to be horrible to Jon once at Bran's bed side, and she feels bad about it afterwards. There are other examples of how bastards are treated in the books and Jon is probably the best treated of all who was brought up alongside the trueborn children. He has very little cause for complaint. Cat has though, but she chooses not to complain.

Quote

Ah, forgive me, but I'm a misogynistic woman hater whose false notion of bravery would be something like rushing Frey and dying in the attempt to kill him, as opposed to your real bravado of brutally executing an unarmed handicapped hostage. I see now why I'm wrong, I was stupid. I'm unarmed, please don't execute me.

Eh? You think Cat should have jumped across the tables to kill Walder Frey? She tried to exchange her hostage for her son, yet Walder Frey said he didn't care for Jinglebells. Walder could have stopped it right there. Cat just saw her son get killed in front of her eyes and tried desperately to do something to free him. She started her vengeance arc there, which she is continuing as UnCat.

Quote

This book is full of strong, brave women; Dany, Arya, Asha, Brienne, Mormont, Melissandra, any woman ever born in Dorne, just to name a few. I'd be surprised if a series that is about a 13 year old girl rising to power will attract many misogynists (not doubting those fans exist).

You feel these women are morally better than Cat? How about Melisandre's shadow babies? Was Renly armoured and ready to fight when she murdered him? Was Cortnay Penrose? Asha is fine with her men raping and pillaging. Arya kills the insurance dude in Braavos, the squire at the Inn of the Crossroads and the Northman guard at Harrenhal. Is she not also guilty of this? Dany crucified shitloads of maesters, she burnt slavers and sacked cities.

Multiple examples of people killing other people who were not particularly guilty, or whose guilt cannot be proven. If you are singling out Cat here, you are simply being prejudiced.

Quote

This is funny to me because I initially liked her, until the girl (!!!omg) I was reading the series with turned me against her somewhere around aCoK. Since she's so smart and I respect her opinion I eventually agreed with her. But to be fair, she is also a woman hating misogynist.

Why did she turn you against Cat? Also, women can be just as misogynist as men, there is no universal rule that says women can't be sexists or internalise sexism really quite well. If it was impossible you would not get female circumcision performed by other women, for example.

Edited by Lyanna Stark, 24 June 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[The Fallen]

Lyanna Stark, on 24 June 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

More interestingly, I wonder if the poster who complained against it hates UnCat more than Cat? He must do, since she is all about killing the Freys.

Somehow it seems people feel UnCat is "cool" though, so then it's all good apparently.

   I don't know about her cool factor, but when she reappeared I definitely felt like the Freys were finally going to have to answer for their actions. This just occurred to me; imagine Lady Stoneheart giving her life to bring Jon Snow back from the dead? Would the Cat haters finally give her her due? Ha ha.

[The Fallen]

WindOfWinter, on 24 June 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

I was also not a fan of the wicked step mother in Cinderella, if anyone needed further proof of my misogyny.

Ah, forgive me, but I'm a misogynistic woman hater whose false notion of bravery would be something like rushing Frey and dying in the attempt to kill him, as opposed to your real bravado of brutally executing an unarmed handicapped hostage. I see now why I'm wrong, I was stupid. I'm unarmed, please don't execute me.

This book is full of strong, brave women; Dany, Arya, Asha, Brienne, Mormont, Melissandra, any woman ever born in Dorne, just to name a few. I'd be surprised if a series that is about a 13 year old girl rising to power will attract many misogynists (not doubting those fans exist).

This is funny to me because I initially liked her, until the girl (!!!omg) I was reading the series with turned me against her somewhere around aCoK. Since she's so smart and I respect her opinion I eventually agreed with her. But to be fair, she is also a woman hating misogynist.

   I'm neither a Cat fanboy nor do I hate Cat. But I think Cat gets judged unfairly. Can anyone honestly say at the time that Cat made any particular decision that it was a horrible decision? We can Monday-morning quarterback all we want and it's fine to criticizie a decision with the advantage of hindsight. But I don't think every decision she made was a horrible decision. I don't think she lost the North the war. And reading Cat's POVs, she definitely came across as a woman of strength.

   I think that having her as a POV and having access to all her doubts and fears may lead some to hold those against her. As far as the RW is concerned, what else could she have done? Realistically speaking, of course.

[TerraPrime]

salt, on 24 June 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Uh, lets try to avoid jamming accusations of sexism into everything,

Not everything. Just things that are sexist.

You're welcome to disagree, of course, that treating characters whose actions are objectively similar in different ways according to their sex is not sexist (e.g. Cat is too overly emotional, but Jon isn't; Cat sucks at the Game and causes her loved ones to die, but Ned is ok; Cat is judgmental and emotional abusive, but Robert is a loveable oaf, etc. ). My criteria of calling something as sexist is this:  do people who castigate Cat use the same set of rules on male characters? If they don't, then I think that's evidence of sexism. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative. I call it when I see it.