Sexism in Catelyn bashing

[Piper]

She hates him for the mere fact he is alive, to the point of throwing him out of the only place he has ever lived with no care of what becomes of him. If she was not actively hostile to him prior to the accident, it would appear it was because of Eddard's influence in the castle to force her into feigned indifference rather then open hostility.

Well, it’s interesting. We get a single interaction described between Cat and Jon, and it’s such an emotionally trying time, it’s hard to judge what other reactions have been like in the past. If all we can do is speculate, we’d best make sure that every point we have is backed by quotations and evidence for each claim. Let’s look at that scene where they talk about Jon again.

“What of Jon Snow, my lord?’ Maester Lewin asked.

Catelyn tensed at the mention of the name. Ned felt the anger in her, and pulled away.

She displays a palpable amount of anger at the mere mention of the name. That seems to correlate better with resentment and dislike, rather than indifference and avoidance. Continuing,

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on the campaign. He had a man’s needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father’s castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than the husband she barely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to that child’s needs.

He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Men brought his bastard home with him, and called him “son†for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

That cut deep. . . .

So read from that what you will. I think it’s hard to deny her general attitude towards Jon was resentment, rather than neutrality. Some can see this scene as an obvious justification for her attitude: Jon stands as constant reminder of her husband’s infidelity, and of his love for another woman, as Ned would never send Jon away for her sake or reveal the identity of the mother. Some will see this as evidence of punishing Jon for a crime he never committed, and crucify her for that.

I see this as evidence of the richness of her character. She acknowledges that Ned should see to his bastard’s needs, but weighed against that is the reminder of what Jon represents.

In any event, I hope I’ve demonstrated it’s possible to criticize Catelyn without being sexist. Honestly, I think the reason she gets so much flack is the same reason Enguerrand, Kal, DanteGabriel, et al will attack Jaime constantly: because there’s enough depth to the characters that they attract fans and critics alike. The reason there’s not that many threads calling Cersei’s character into question is no one will stand to defend her. Cat and Jaime both have critics and foes who engage constantly. You can’t have a war without a side to fight against.

Anyways, that’s my two cents on the subject.

[Bronn Stone]

Where do we see this as being her plan?

Have you even read these books????

She outlines her concerns about her other childrens status in Riverrun when Robb speaks to her of naming Jon his heir. That is the point at which her motivation is laid out for those who couldn't figure it out on their own.

[CelticBrennus]

Have you even read these books????

Blow me, so I forgot a couple of pages out of several thousand.

However much Jon may love Robb now, and whatever his loyalties now, he ultimately still presents a threat to Robb and the whole legitimate line. The gods only know what slight he may take in the future, and with a claim (though admittedly tainted) to the North, there's no telling what he might do if offended.

Would he be more or less likely to turn against the Starks if he was cast out of his home, or if Catelyn treated him like a human being.

[Lord Mord]

LordPiper,

Well, you've certainly demonstrated it's possible to critical of Catelyn, and the sexist angle, whether you are or not, is for the time-being irrelevant to me.

I am concerned that you think Catelyn's resentment of Jon's presence somehow makes her ignoble. It doesn't elevate her to the level of some lofty paragon of human compassion, but neither is it particularly damning. As you point out, she'd have had no problem with Ned taking care of Jon -- but does that mean he had to live in Winterfell? Does that mean he has to stay in Winterfell until Jon himself chooses the time to leave?

If your own asnwer to these is, as mine, "no," then there is room for Catelyn to bargain without losing all virtue in regards to Jon. She doesn't argue for him to be killed or abandoned, she just didn't want him in her home. What's so wrong with that sentiment, that we should be critical of her just for feeling it?

[Lord Mord]

CB,

Would he be more or less likely to turn against the Starks if he was cast out of his home, or if Catelyn treated him like a human being.

Is he more of a threat to deal with if he is trusted, given lands and a holdfast and soldiers, or if he's apprenticed to a swineherd or shipped off to the Wall?

[Padraig]

Ah, so you agree with me that Catelyn Stark is the woman who is always wrong when it counts.

Why would you say that when you know i'm just going to disagree?

And of course, if you want to play by those sort of rules, it is best for Westeros that he ended up on the Wall.

Would he be more or less likely to turn against the Starks if he was cast out of his home, or if Catelyn treated him like a human being.

Nobody should argue that she treated Jon well, its just whether what she did was terrible considering his circumstances and the times she lived in.

I don't think Catelyn mistrusted Jon's loyalty, but she did realize that he was a threat to the role she envisioned for her own children

Well, what about in aSoS when she discusses with Robb who he should name as heir?

I would hazard to say that had Jon been with Robb during his campaign, Jon would have talked some sensibility back into him and prevented him from marrying his "comforter".

Pure speculation. Jon and Robb grew up together, there is no reason to believe that they would have a very different outlook on that kind of relationship. And of course, Robb would probably have still lost with or without his marriage. The Tyrell-Lannister alliance doomed him a lot more than a marriage.

In any event, I hope I’ve demonstrated it’s possible to criticize Catelyn without being sexist.

I don't think anyone said otherwise. The issue is the amount of flak Catelyn gets for some (minor) flaws in her character.

[Jon Targaryen]

She outlines her concerns about her other childrens status in Riverrun when Robb speaks to her of naming Jon his heir. That is the point at which her motivation is laid out for those who couldn't figure it out on their own.

Actually Bronn I think Catelyn feared that Jon would be another Theon and that even if Jon was okay his children and their children and on and on would not be okay. They would try to usurp Robb's heirs. I don't see where Catelyn says Jon would take Bran and Rickon's rightful place. In fact, when Catelyn is discussing Jon as heir, Bran and Rickon are dead.

[Piper]

LordPiper,

Well, you've certainly demonstrated it's possible to critical of Catelyn, and the sexist angle, whether you are or not, is for the time-being irrelevant to me.

Well, I think the topic of the thread was about the sexist motivation of Cat hate, but as we're on the topic, sure, let's go over it.

I am concerned that you think Catelyn's resentment of Jon's presence somehow makes her ignoble. It doesn't elevate her to the level of some lofty paragon of human compassion, but neither is it particularly damning. As you point out, she'd have had no problem with Ned taking care of Jon -- but does that mean he had to live in Winterfell? Does that mean he has to stay in Winterfell until Jon himself chooses the time to leave?

If your own asnwer to these is, as mine, "no," then there is room for Catelyn to bargain without losing all virtue in regards to Jon. She doesn't argue for him to be killed or abandoned, she just didn't want him in her home. What's so wrong with that sentiment, that we should be critical of her just for feeling it?

I certainly don't hate Cat. I certainly dislike Jon more than I dislike her; Catelyn never tried to kill a man for making a snide remark about her father, afterall.

In this instance, I don't see Cat's actions vis-a-vis Jon as making her "lose all virtue in regard to Jon." But I think there is a bit of selfishness to them. Why should Jon be kicked out of the only home he had ever known? Why shouldn't Ned Stark's son be able to live in Ned Stark's house, eating from his father's table, sleeping beneath his fathers roof? What had Jon done to deserve her scorn? If anyone deserves her scorn, it's Ned, but instead she seems to pin it on Jon.

There's no reason I can see that he shouldn't be allowed to stay at Winterfell, other than that Cat doesn't want him there. That hardly seems fair to Jon. Does it make her a terrible person to put her interests above his interests? Of course not. But it doesn't make her a saint, either.

Edit for typo

[Lord Mord]

LordPiper,

There's no reason I can see that he shouldn't be allowed to stay at Winterfell, other than that Cat doesn't want him there. That hardly seems fair to Jon. Does it make her a terrible person to put her interests above his interests? Of course not. But it doesn't make her a saint, either.

Edit for typo

It doesn't seem as if we're very different in our actual regard for Catelyn on the saint/serpent scale, but I do take exception to the idea that Cat's feelings are irrelevant to whether or not Jon should stay at Winterfell.

You ask, "Why shouldn't he stay?" and I say, "As well ask, 'Why not make a public, daily disgrace of your wife?'"

[Piper]

LordPiper,

It doesn't seem as if we're very different in our actual regard for Catelyn on the saint/serpent scale, but I do take exception to the idea that Cat's feelings are irrelevant to whether or not Jon should stay at Winterfell.

You ask, "Why shouldn't he stay?" and I say, "As well ask, 'Why not make a public, daily disgrace of your wife?'"

I don't think we're off, either. I agree, I can see her side on this. Why should she have to put up with the constant reminder of Ned's infidelity? But I can also see Jon's side of this. Why should he be booted out of his home just because now Ned's going south? It's the beauty of the series, that we are forced to see everyone's interests involved. I can see both sides as trying to putt their quite legitimate interests ahead of the other's quite legitimate interest. I just don't think Catelyn is really looking at Jon's side. And that's a mark against her, in my book. But compared to the enormities comitted by other characters, yes, it is small fries.

[DanteGabriel]

I don't think we're off, either. I agree, I can see her side on this. Why should she have to put up with the constant reminder of Ned's infidelity? But I can also see Jon's side of this. Why should he be booted out of his home just because now Ned's going south? It's the beauty of the series, that we are forced to see everyone's interests involved. I can see both sides as trying to putt their quite legitimate interests ahead of the other's quite legitimate interest. I just don't think Catelyn is really looking at Jon's side. And that's a mark against her, in my book. But compared to the enormities comitted by other characters, yes, it is small fries.

A balanced look at Catelyn. Shucks, it's almost as if GRRM wrote her to be a flawed, believable, and thoroughly human character, instead of some "arrogant witch" who exists only to steer the Starks into utter disaster.

[Padraig]

A balanced look at Catelyn. Shucks, it's almost as if GRRM wrote her to be a flawed, believable, and thoroughly human character, instead of some "arrogant witch" who exists only to steer the Starks into utter disaster.

[Lord Mord]

DG,

A balanced look at Catelyn. Shucks, it's almost as if GRRM wrote her to be a flawed, believable, and thoroughly human character, instead of some "arrogant witch" who exists only to steer the Starks into utter disaster.

Precisely. That is soooo weird -- that we can see her as flawed, without having to, you know, choose between hating her or thinking she's a goddess of motherly virtue. It's even weirder that for all that we disagree with some of her choices, see her flaws, we can also see past them, and not have to do so much as dislike her.

[Nuri Snow]

LordPiper,

It doesn't seem as if we're very different in our actual regard for Catelyn on the saint/serpent scale, but I do take exception to the idea that Cat's feelings are irrelevant to whether or not Jon should stay at Winterfell.

You ask, "Why shouldn't he stay?" and I say, "As well ask, 'Why not make a public, daily disgrace of your wife?'"

I like Cat, but I would argue that "Why not make a public, daily disgrace of your wife?" is not precise. This is a question which was warranted when Ned brought Jon first to Winterfell - or maybe in the first few years. Then was the time to fight this battle. Now the question has changed to: "We made Winterfell the home of this boy, his only place in the world as of now - why should we expel him from it now?" Fourteen years of living somewhere give you a bond - and, maybe, a right to a place.

Mind you, I still found it impressive that Catelyn realized she would not have the strength to treat Jon well (which would be asking a lot of her, too) and fought the problem before it arised. But Jon was no longer a "guest" in Winterfell after living there as the son of its Lord for fourteen years. That, IMO, would be a misrepresentation.

WRT the thread heading - I have a strong dislike for the tactic to "discern" motivations of your opponent in a discussion. It leads away from the discussed question to the new question "Is my opponent a Bad Person" which is mainly answered by means of speculation. I would call my opponent out on the (necessarily weak) points he makes due to his sexism, not try to analyse him.

A thread which tries to discern the role sexism plays in the minds of catelyn-bashers borders on this kind of tactic.

[Piper]

DG,

Precisely. That is soooo weird -- that we can see her as flawed, without having to, you know, choose between hating her or thinking she's a goddess of motherly virtue. It's even weirder that for all that we disagree with some of her choices, see her flaws, we can also see past them, and not have to do so much as dislike her.

And all the weirder that we can examine her character without being called sexist or irrational.

[The_BlauerDragon]

DG,

Precisely. That is soooo weird -- that we can see her as flawed, without having to, you know, choose between hating her or thinking she's a goddess of motherly virtue. It's even weirder that for all that we disagree with some of her choices, see her flaws, we can also see past them, and not have to do so much as dislike her.

Speak for yourself. I don't think that there is any need to resort to sexism to hate Catelyn. She may be a wonderfully "human" character, but she is evil, vile, and inhumane and I don't see any redeeming qualities in her. I have said before, and I'll say it again. If I was at Harrenhall, and I had to chose between Cat and Cersei for who I would save from the bear. I would pull Cersei out and wish the bear Bon Appetite! Don't get me wrong, I really dislike Cersei, it's just that I see her as a better person (and more worthy of sympathy) by comparison.

[DanteGabriel]

Speak for yourself. I don't think that there is any need to resort to sexism to hate Catelyn. She may be a wonderfully "human" character, but she is evil, vile, and inhumane and I don't see any redeeming qualities in her. I have said before, and I'll say it again. If I was at Harrenhall, and I had to chose between Cat and Cersei for who I would save from the bear. I would pull Cersei out and wish the bear Bon Appetite! Don't get me wrong, I really dislike Cersei, it's just that I see her as a better person (and more worthy of sympathy) by comparison.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the kind of post that makes me wonder about misogyny and mommy issues, and led me to say this in the Catelyn Defense thread:

I'll also note that, as I read through this thread, the Catelyn defenders tend to have much better and more rationally constructed arguments than the chortling pack of misogynistic double-think that characterizes a majority of the anti-Catelyn posts here. Some of you Catelyn haters manage to express yourselves like rational folks, but a lot of it is just on the level of "that dumb bitch said something mean to Jon."

Thanks for keeping it real, Blauer Dragon. We were dangerously close to coming to some kind of reasonable point, but I'm glad you're here to remind us all why this thread got started in the first place.

[Piper]

Speak for yourself. I don't think that there is any need to resort to sexism to hate Catelyn. She may be a wonderfully "human" character, but she is evil, vile, and inhumane and I don't see any redeeming qualities in her.

So loving her family and devoting herself to her children's well being isn't redeeming?

I have said before, and I'll say it again. If I was at Harrenhall, and I had to chose between Cat and Cersei for who I would save from the bear. I would pull Cersei out and wish the bear Bon Appetite! Don't get me wrong, I really dislike Cersei, it's just that I see her as a better person (and more worthy of sympathy) by comparison.

So Cersei's incestuous, treasonous affair with her supposedly celibate brother, her watching calmly the turturing of the Blue Bard, giving countless others to inhumane experiment at the hand's of her appointed master of wispers, and her abuse of Teana, those are worse than everything Catelyn does? :sick:

[Lord Mord]

Nuri Snow,

I like Cat, but I would argue that "Why not make a public, daily disgrace of your wife?" is not precise. This is a question which was warranted when Ned brought Jon first to Winterfell - or maybe in the first few years. Then was the time to fight this battle. Now the question has changed to: "We made Winterfell the home of this boy, his only place in the world as of now - why should we expel him from it now?" Fourteen years of living somewhere give you a bond - and, maybe, a right to a place.

I don't think is quite fair. Basically, this amounts to Ned saying to Cat, "Well, you've endured this humiliation and my slights against your person for all this time -- what matter a few years more?"

I say, if it was wrong when it started, it's still wrong, years later. The more so because, as I have said already, there have been and still are other options for Ned, as he only begrudgingly sees after his last talk with Catelyn.

Mind you, I still found it impressive that Catelyn realized she would not have the strength to treat Jon well (which would be asking a lot of her, too) and fought the problem before it arised. But Jon was no longer a "guest" in Winterfell after living there as the son of its Lord for fourteen years. That, IMO, would be a misrepresentation.

Your opinion would likely change if you were in that position yourself. "Guest," in this context, refers to a state of mind. If your hostess doesn't want you, no matter how long she has had to put up with your presence, you are, to her, in that whole time, the guest of her husband, whom she must abide.

WRT the thread heading - I have a strong dislike for the tactic to "discern" motivations of your opponent in a discussion.

That's not, as I understand it, how the topic came about.

What I believe happened instead is: somebody made an argument to justify his or her hatred of Catelyn. Someone else characterized those arguments -- not those persons making them -- as sexist. The makers of the argument posted their displeasure and disbelief, and the rebuttal was forthcoming which demonstrated the reasoning which prompted the arguments to be classified as sexist.

I don't think that classifying arguments is bad, because classification under "bad" terms, such as racist, sexist, homophobic, helps us to associate their badness with the argument. "If you agree with that, you may as well agree that women should be barefoot and in the kitchen," where the original poster then reflects, and, if the comparison holds up, says, "Well, gosh, I think it's not up to me to classify a woman's place -- since my original argument is contrary to that position (i.e., is sexist), then I should give up my original argument."

Furthermore, a dicussion of sexist thinking helps persons previously disposed to it to avoid it in future, because they will recognize their own faulty patterns.

[Lord Mord]

Blauer Dragon,

Speak for yourself. I don't think that there is any need to resort to sexism to hate Catelyn. She may be a wonderfully "human" character, but she is evil, vile, and inhumane and I don't see any redeeming qualities in her.

Thinking this in the face of all the evidence against you is certainly your perogative.

I have said before, and I'll say it again. If I was at Harrenhall, and I had to chose between Cat and Cersei for who I would save from the bear. I would pull Cersei out and wish the bear Bon Appetite! Don't get me wrong, I really dislike Cersei, it's just that I see her as a better person (and more worthy of sympathy) by comparison.

I guess, it's just as well for everyone else that your morality is not universally shared.