Devouring their children: Portrayal of mothers in ASOIAF

[Queen Cersei I]

I’ve been meaning to bring up this issue for a while now, but it’s kept slipping my mind. However the “scary fathers” thread brought the idea back up.

IMO, in his portrayal of mother’s in these books, GRRM has killed one of our society’s last sacred cows—that of mothers and motherhood; that motherhood is sacred, and that any mother who truly loves her children and has good will for them in her heart will be able to do what is best for them.

In the past, there were many literary sacred cows. Marriage, for instance. If a married woman was going to be portrayed positively, it could be almost taken for granted that she was going to be a good and loving wife as well. (Fidelity was especially crucial. Anna Karrenina, Madam Bovary, and Tess were very much the exeptions rather than the rule.) However, as times have changed and modernized, most sacred cows—including romantic love, marriage, etc.—have been disposed of.

One remains, though. That of mothers and motherhood. It seems to be a common occurrence in the popular media that any mother, providing she have a genuine love for her child and his best interests at heart, may do the job well. Similarly, I can think of a fair share of female villainesses and characters whose only admirable quality is their love for their children. This is treated as a redeeming quality; there is no question that it is positive and for the good (for both the children and the mother.) Mother’s and motherhood is sort of a sacred cow; no one really dares to decry it.

Until now. Throughout the series, GRRM turns most of our culture's conventional notions about mothers, motherhood, and the innate strenght, purity, and goodness of maternal love on their heads. These books are filled with numerous coddling, overprotective, foolish, and downright horrible mothers. The damage such females do their children (often implied to be permanent and irreparable) is amply on display.

Of course, there are plenty of lousy fathers, too. However, there are a few crucial differences that seperate them from the portrayal of mothers. First, when children have bad fathers, the effects on the children is often shown to be more temporary and less severe. Randyll Tarley may have systematically abused and bullied his son; however, with the exception of his obvious inferiority complex (which, imo, he will grow out of,) Samwell appears to have turned out pretty damn well. Similarly, Robert Baratheon’s bastards, which he spawned like a tomcat and then abandoned without a second thought, all seem to have grown up to be fairly good, successful, well balanced, basically all around decent human beings. (Interesting to note the difference between Joffrey, the child whom Cersei loved sincerely and subsequently (according to Kevan and Jaime) destroyed; and Robert’s male bastard children, whom he didn’t care a damn about and abandoned, but grew up A-Okay regardless.)

Secondly, and more importantly, most—or, I believe, ALL—of the monstrous, scary fathers—Randyll Tarley, Tywin, Robert Baratheon, etc.—are basically horrible through either downright abuse and mistreatment or total lack of effort on their part. Tywin and Randyll blatantly abuse their sons, and clearly do not feel the love of a true father; Robert spawns his kids and takes off. However, those fathers who do put forth an effort, and genuinely love their children—Ned Stark, Oberyn Martell, etc.—do wonderfully at the job, and are loving and nurturing towards their children. Basically, the guys who are “scary fathers” are so because they either intentionally abuse their kids, or simply don’t give a shit about them.

In stark contrast to the bad mothers. The horrible mothers in these books genuinely love their kids, do everything for them, believe totally they are acting in their kids best interests, and nevertheless proceed to be horrible mothers and utterly fuck up their kids regardless. Can there be any question that both Lysa Tully and Cersei Lannister truly love their children? And they would not, if it came down to it, die for them? (something that none of the bad fathers would do, let me note.) And yet they have done more horrendous, permanent, lasting damage than any of the most blatantly abusive fathers.

Little Robert Arryn is a shaking, hysterical, quasi sadistic, little shit who is apparently still arrested at the early stage of development. (Emotionally and mentally, though not physically.) He will probably soon die a slow, brutal death at the hands of a sociopath because of his loving mother—the mother who poisoned his father in an effort to stay with him, and then left him with the aforementioned sociopath. Joffrey Lannister was an utter, raving little sociopathic sadist, utter coward, and first rate moron, thanks (everyone in the books is implying) to the mother who adored him, and subsequently destroyed him. And if Cersei Lannister doesn’t cause the death of one child (Myrcella) and kill the other herself in a fit of batshit insanity (Tommen) I’ll eat my shoes.

The portrayal of these women—and pretty much all of the significant female characters who are mothers—flies in the face of so many of our societies still held beliefs about mothers and motherhood. That a woman could love her children deeply, be entirely dedicated to their well being, and work tirelessly for their advancement, yet still be the world’s worst mom, and utterly destroy them morally and emotionally, is not a concept that is widely accepted, if the portrayal of mothers in most mainstream media—TV, movies, popular literature—is any indication. Far from managing to overcome their personal limitations and triumphing through the strength of their love for their own children, Lysa and Cersei are actually the worst things that ever happened to their beloved kids—one suspects that the kids would have been better had they been raised motherless.

Furthermore, as is the case with many independent women today who feel shackled at being defined too much by their role as a wife but nevertheless revel in their role as a mother, both Lysa and Cersei consider the fact that they are loving, dedicated mothers an essential part of their identity. GRRM seems to have a field day satirizing them for this, showing their “love” for their children as, at best, an animalistic, destructive, senseless force; at worst, a form of selfish narcissism. (There is much debate, on these forums, whether or not Lysa and especially Cersei, actually care for their children. I believe this is meant to be highly ambiguous, especially in Cersei’s case.) Far from being a redeeming quality, as it is in most mainstream media, a mother’s love for her children in these books is looked upon with much cynicism.

Even the only significant female character who has the best claim to being a good mother, Catelyn Stark, is somewhat contentious. Cat loves her kids and wants the best for them, but there is something negative with her all consuming obsession about her children; something dark and primal about that love. It is not portrayed as purely positive, or even selfless. Most obviously, her all consuming love for her kids leads her to ignore Jon Snow, something countless readers downright HATE her for. (And something that she is portrayed very negatively for.)

Furthermore, mother love seems to lie at the root of all of Cat’s most stupid decisions. Cat urges Ned to go on the doomed trip with king bob… so she can advance the fortunes of her children. She refuses to have Jon Snow at winterfell and (according to Ned and many readers) forces Jon to join the nightswatch at age 14, because she is afraid that he poses a threat to her children. She later says words to Jon that earned her the enmity of approximately 75 percent of readers everywhere because of her crazy biatch grief over her children. She later makes the single stupidest decision in all of the books when she let’s Jaime Lannister go free… so he can go find her children.

Overall, the issue of whether Cat was, overall, a negative or a positive influence on her children is very much up for debate.

Finally, Cat comes back from the dead an evil, heartless zombie, dedicated to murdering those who hurt her child. Her all consuming love for her children has turned into an all consuming love for revenge, and she has become a monster. (And even more hated than she was before, if that is even possible.) She now stands for the forces of destructiveness, and is leading numerous decent men down the path of vengeance and destruction.

There are also some indications that motherhood is something that holds women back, keeps them down. All of the significant characters who are kick ass action gals in this series—Asha, Arya, Brienne, etc.—are childless. Most notably, Dany loses (perhaps even half knowingly sacrifices?) her child, and the heavens open for her (quite literally.) Her impediment gone, she is free to conquer the world (literally.)

[Verboten]

I firmly believe that Robin suffers from hydrocephalus and his emotional and intellectual maturity were arrested because of this, not because of his mother.

[Verboten]

And the way I see it all love in this series is portrayed as damaging or at least potentially so. Robert loved Lyanna and it destroyed him from the inside out. Cersei loves Jaime and Jaime loves Cersei, just look at what they are now. Ned loved his children to the point where he allows his daughter to have swordfighting lessons, basically the equivalent of allowing her to walk around naked, and then confesses to treason to save them. Tywin loved Joanna so when Tyrions birth killed her he died a little himself. Aerys and Arianne, Lysa and Petyr, Dany and Drogo, there are countless examples of love, romantic or not, consuming both the holder of the torch and the one who is loved. It's like a wildfire, beautiful to see but utterly devastating to that it touches*. Even Loras, the paragon of fairy tale love, allows it to destroy his judgement.

*_{I totally stole this metaphor you guys}

[The King in the South]

I firmly believe that Robin suffers from hydrocephalus and his emotional and intellectual maturity were arrested because of this, not because of his mother.

Agreed, I always got the impression that Lysa was crazy because she didn't know what was wrong with her son, not that he was crazy because of her actions. (Although her actions certainly didn't help much.)

Perhaps than Cersei is just an anomaly? I always kind of got a transsexual impression from her anyways, and I think in such a male dominated world that probably twisted her considerably. (Being in that case she has both a little bit of the Cersei you are talking about and the Randall Tarly/Tywin/etc in her.)

And then I always just saw Joffrey with some kind of defect related to his incestual heritage. (Again, Cersei's actions towards him may not have helped, but I don't think they were the primary factor like you seem to be arguing in their development?)

[Silmarien]

I think GRRM just portrays mothers realistically. Unfortunately, not all mothers are loving and great influences on their children. Some are abusive (whether they know it or not). Others are just neglectful. I don't think ASOIAF portrays mothers differently than anything else - the running theme of moral "grayness" and "life is not a song" (ie, not all mothers are good mothers). Just IMHO.

Cool topic, btw.

[LuisDantas]

I firmly believe that Robin suffers from hydrocephalus and his emotional and intellectual maturity were arrested because of this, not because of his mother.

That would make a lot of sense, and even explain a lot of Lysa's own unbalance and strong feelings of denial. I don't know if it would help explain her failed pregnancies, but wouldn't be surprised if it did. Good call!

[ARYa_Nym]

I think there's also that what if element there. Maybe Tywin's children wouldn't be so messed up if they had their mother. In Jaime and Cersei's case maybe the twins would have been kept apart.

In Theon's case both Ned and Catelyn were cold to him. His hostage/ward situation influenced how he turned out. His mother seemed to care and wish for him. Maybe Theon would have been better off if he wasn't taken from her.

In Jon's case Ned had to be mother and father. Jon always yearned for his mother yet his "siblings" had theirs. Although he probably would have grown up in Essos if his mother was Lyanna but maybe he would have preferred that life and wouldn't have had such issues.

To the last point I think it's a very wide held concept only in today's world it would be the career woman vs. the house wife. Both can be done of course but this has been a debate. I don't see anything wrong with that point of view but maybe it's because I've read too much Anne Sexton.

Asha might be pregnant though. Dany doesn't have Rhaego but she gained new "children." It felt like for a while that there was a sentiment that she can be a mother to her people but then she realized that her dragons were her real children.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I agree with the others who've suggested that Robin Arryn has some sort of severe birth/developmental effect that is independent of Lysa's mothering. It especially makes sense given what happened with Lysa's other pregnancies. I also don't think there's much evidence of Catelyn herself doing real emotional damage to her children, except perhaps Rickon, and that's more a matter of her absence than it is any active mothering.

Regarding Joffrey, I don't view Cersei so much as the root cause of his evil so much as an enabler. The fact that he behaved cruelly from such a young age (like with the cat) suggests an inherent psychological disorder, i.e. antisocial personality disorder. If Cersei "ruined" him, it's because she was in denial over how evil he truly was and did nothing to curb or punish his proclivities.

And as others have said, a mother-child loving relationship isn't the only one that's treated with cynicism. Familial, romantic and friendly relationships are also often portrayed as leading to some kind of disaster. Given the social structure of the time (going on a rough feudal approximation), fathers in general were less active and engaged in their children's lives, as were noble/royal parents in general. So we shouldn't be surprised if royal/noble parents in ASOIAF behave differently from what we'd expect today, and if there's a marked difference in how fathers treat their children compared with how mothers treat them.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

This characterization may be true for some of the most prominent mothers so far, but there are other mothers who are not villainized or seen as destructive forces because of their motherly love. Elia Martell, Joanna Lannister, Elia and Oberyn's mother, Genna Frey, Taena Merryweather, Ellaria Sand, Alerie Tyrell, Dorna Lannister, Alannys Greyjoy, Anya Waynwood, Marya Seaworth, Sybelle Glover... Unfortunately several of them did not live long enough to see their children into adulthood, but none of them are portrayed as Cersei, Lysa or Cat are.

Also, the reasons behind these three mothers' "failings" are all vastly different. Cersei's problems with Joffrey seem to have been almost a prototypical overindulgence of her firstborn, and clearly favorite, child. I have seen this happen in lots of RL families and it usually produces children who, while not murderous little sadists, are certainly not well adjusted or well liked individuals. But even if Cersei fails to win mother of the year for Joff, Tommen and Myrcella seem to have turned out reasonably well, whether because of Cersei or despite her.

Lysa clings to, and again drastically overindulges, her son because for many years he is all she has, and she probably fears he is all she will ever have, given her childbearing history. Spoiling is never going to turn out a good result with a child, but I do not necessarily see Lysa being portrayed as narcissistic in her love for Robert - she seems to me to be totally motivated by fear for his health and safety. Not a great mothering technique, but not exactly something that would get your kid taken away by cps, either.

Cat, IMO, is not portrayed as stupidly or negatively as a mother as you see her. I have four birth children and three step, so I have some experience with the feeling that all these separate parts of your heart are walking around in different places at once. Bran's fall is her first real confrontation with the mortality and vulnerability of her kids, and she does not handle it well. I do have a disagreement with a lot of the actions she takes from then on in the name of "protecting" her kids - somehow she does seem to get a bit dimwitted about it, and it is hard for me to sympathize with that - but who knows if I would do any better. I do strongly dislike her treatment of Jon and find it a deep flaw in her character, but that does not to me automatically equal her being some kind of monster. She has her moments as both a good mom and as a not so smart mom, who definitely starts to lose it as her children are lost to her in a very short period of time, but I think any mother can understand a woman going simply batshit insane as she loses two, then two, then sees the last one murdered before her eyes.

I also think there are more examples of dads who are neither abusive nor absentee than you are considering, who still make some pretty big mistakes in the name of parenthood. Hoster Tully obviously loved his children, was part of their lives, and wanted what was best for them, but still managed to eff up quite badly with Lysa (I actually had a friend in HS who was forced to have an abortion when she turned up pregnant at 16, and they genuinely thought what they were doing was best for her too). In my friends' case she eventually moved on and had an okay relationship with her parents, but in Lysa's case the forced abortion is where most people date the beginning of her lifelong issues. Ned himself obviously loves and is engaged with his kids, but his bad judgment puts them directly in harm's way, and fairly predictably. Doran Martell loves his kids, but his ambition has resulted in one being sent off to be crispy-fried and almost resulted in another taking a vacation that would have ended with his assassination.

I guess I just don't see the case as clear cut, black and white as you do. There are good parents and bad parents, parents with good intentions but crappy results and parents who manage to raise their kids with not a noted freak or nutcase in the bunch. There are the Cerseis and the Rooses, and then there are the Mace and Alerie Tyrells. Just as in real life, they don't come with instructions, and every parent, however well intentioned, is going to screw up - some more notably than others. I think it just happens that a great deal of attention is paid to Cersei's mothering because what Joff turned out to be was so prominent to the storyline. Likewise, all five (or at least four) of Cat's kids have been major players, so her abilities as a mother are closely examined.

And Lysa ...well, there is just that freaky and nightmare inducing breastfeeding thing. I think she pretty much jumped the shark with most readers right then and there. But I can tell you for the record that in my husband's enormous Irish-Catholic family, within the past few years, we have had one mom who nursed her daughter to age 3, and one her son until he was 4. So even Lysa's weirdnesses are not as out-there as we might like to think.

[Silmarien]

I firmly believe that Robin suffers from hydrocephalus and his emotional and intellectual maturity were arrested because of this, not because of his mother.

Well, if nothing else, Robert Arryn suffers from very severe epilepsy. Which can be fatal, especially given the lack of anti-epileptic medication (other than Sweetsleep, which is a poison, and builds up in the system).

Your idea makes a lot of sense, as well.

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

This is certainly a very interesting thread, and very well thought out. Well said.

However, it is interesting to note that, as you say, all of the mothers - who are abusive - are abusive by keeping their children too close; by "loving" them too much. For the sake of my argument here, I will from here on replace the word "love" with the word "nurture", and you'll soon understand why.

As you say, fathers who are abusive are abusive by ignoring or shunning or casting out their children.

I am not saying that you are wrong that GRRM is doing this intentionally, as a method of challenging us as readers, and forcing us to turn our long-held beliefs on our heads, but perhaps he is doing it less as a means of challenging us and more as a means of describing traditional gender-roles.

Consider, in real life, in modern times, in 1st world countries, only over the past 50 years or so, if that, have people begun to question gender/family roles. In other words, the mother/female was always the one at home, the one who spent the most time with the children, the one who nurtured them most, the one who was the "housewife". Whereas, the man was the one who left home to go to work and provide for the family. They were less responsible for the physical and emotional nurturing of the child, and spent far less time with the child. Only in resent decades have there been more and more "househusbands" and wives who work more often and make more money.

Now, as much of a hot-button argument as this could turn into, some people would argue that this is directly derived from ancient primitive humans, and from the way that they, essentially, had to live. Men bear more genetic musculature, and so are better at fending off predators, and women's bodies produce milk needed by the babies for sustenance.

So, fast-forward hundreds of thousands of years into human evolution, but still before humans have begun to challenge social gender roles (as we now do in real life modern times), and women in medieval times (such as the world GRRM has created) are still more of the stay at home nurturers and men the breadwinners. Women have fewer opportunities and avenues of advancement available to them, while men (first-born sons anyway) have the world at their fingers.

What I'm getting at, is that perhaps GRRM is not so much saying that women's motherly love is inherently more dangerous and harmful to the child than the father's love, so much as he is saying (whether he even realizes it or not) the nurturers love - that is, the one who is "stuck" (as some housewives/mothers do feel this way, I know) staying at home with the kids, day in and day out - manifests itself through means that she is familiar with; nurturing, or rather over-nurturing - keeping the child too close, thinking that only she can protect them, and effectively smothering them and making them incapable of survival away from home (as we see with Lysa and her son).

In ASoIaF, when a father is "evil", or emotionally deviant, or overwhelmed with responsibility, their abuse toward their children (even if they think they love their kids) takes the form that all of their interactions prior to that have taken, minimal, perhaps distant - because they are the "providers", gone from home, hunting, working, warring, etc... When a mother is "evil", or emotionally deviant, or overwhelmed with responsibility, their abuse toward their children (even if they think they love their kids) also takes the form that all of their interactions prior have taken - "nurturing" (smothering) - staying close (too close), being protective (too protective), thinking that "mother knows best" (keeping them under lock and key, as Lysa does with her son).

So, I would argue that the mothers who abuse their children, whether intentionally or not, are not necessarily worse (in potential) than the fathers who do so, but that they are worse (in effect) than the fathers, simply because the mothers, in the traditional stay-at-home, nurturing role, are in closer proximity to the child, and their "love" (twisted as it might be) takes the confusing form of nurturing. Specifically, in the cases of Tommen and Robert (Arryn), they don't realize that their mothers are crazy, and do not realize that their mothers' love, however unintentional, is effectively poisonous to them.

[voodooqueen126]

This is certainly a very interesting thread, and very well thought out. Well said.

However, it is interesting to note that, as you say, all of the mothers - who are abusive - are abusive by keeping their children too close; by "loving" them too much. For the sake of my argument here, I will from here on replace the word "love" with the word "nurture", and you'll soon understand why.

As you say, fathers who are abusive are abusive by ignoring or shunning or casting out their children.

I am not saying that you are wrong that GRRM is doing this intentionally, as a method of challenging us as readers, and forcing us to turn our long-held beliefs on our heads, but perhaps he is doing it less as a means of challenging us and more as a means of describing traditional gender-roles.

Consider, in real life, in modern times, in 1st world countries, only over the past 50 years or so, if that, have people begun to question gender/family roles. In other words, the mother/female was always the one at home, the one who spent the most time with the children, the one who nurtured them most, the one who was the "housewife". Whereas, the man was the one who left home to go to work and provide for the family. They were less responsible for the physical and emotional nurturing of the child, and spent far less time with the child. Only in resent decades have there been more and more "househusbands" and wives who work more often and make more money.

Now, as much of a hot-button argument as this could turn into, some people would argue that this is directly derived from ancient primitive humans, and from the way that they, essentially, had to live. Men bear more genetic musculature, and so are better at fending off predators, and women's bodies produce milk needed by the babies for sustenance.

So, fast-forward hundreds of thousands of years into human evolution, but still before humans have begun to challenge social gender roles (as we now do in real life modern times), and women in medieval times (such as the world GRRM has created) are still more of the stay at home nurturers and men the breadwinners. Women have fewer opportunities and avenues of advancement available to them, while men (first-born sons anyway) have the world at their fingers.

What I'm getting at, is that perhaps GRRM is not so much saying that women's motherly love is inherently more dangerous and harmful to the child than the father's love, so much as he is saying (whether he even realizes it or not) the nurturers love - that is, the one who is "stuck" (as some housewives/mothers do feel this way, I know) staying at home with the kids, day in and day out - manifests itself through means that she is familiar with; nurturing, or rather over-nurturing - keeping the child too close, thinking that only she can protect them, and effectively smothering them and making them incapable of survival away from home (as we see with Lysa and her son).

In ASoIaF, when a father is "evil", or emotionally deviant, or overwhelmed with responsibility, their abuse toward their children (even if they think they love their kids) takes the form that all of their interactions prior to that have taken, minimal, perhaps distant - because they are the "providers", gone from home, hunting, working, warring, etc... When a mother is "evil", or emotionally deviant, or overwhelmed with responsibility, their abuse toward their children (even if they think they love their kids) also takes the form that all of their interactions prior have taken - "nurturing" (smothering) - staying close (too close), being protective (too protective), thinking that "mother knows best" (keeping them under lock and key, as Lysa does with her son).

So, I would argue that the mothers who abuse their children, whether intentionally or not, are not necessarily worse (in potential) than the fathers who do so, but that they are worse (in effect) than the fathers, simply because the mothers, in the traditional stay-at-home, nurturing role, are in closer proximity to the child, and their "love" (twisted as it might be) takes the confusing form of nurturing. Specifically, in the cases of Tommen and Robert (Arryn), they don't realize that their mothers are crazy, and do not realize that their mothers' love, however unintentional, is effectively poisonous to them.

You know, my partner's mother is very much in the traditional gender role, she also left school at 12 and married between the ages of 14-16. I would say my partner inherits his brains from her (his father has made some very foolish decision) and that she channels her intelligence into being an OCD neat freak...

and I would have to say that she is a total smother, completely over protective and controlling. My theory as to why she acts the way she does... he is her only son (one other child the older sister), and my partner is very much a source of love for... it's all fairly oedipal frankly.

[Zmeischa]

And the way I see it all love in this series is portrayed as damaging or at least potentially so. Robert loved Lyanna and it destroyed him from the inside out. Cersei loves Jaime and Jaime loves Cersei, just look at what they are now. Ned loved his children to the point where he allows his daughter to have swordfighting lessons, basically the equivalent of allowing her to walk around naked, and then confesses to treason to save them. Tywin loved Joanna so when Tyrions birth killed her he died a little himself. Aerys and Arianne, Lysa and Petyr, Dany and Drogo, there are countless examples of love, romantic or not, consuming both the holder of the torch and the one who is loved. It's like a wildfire, beautiful to see but utterly devastating to that it touches*. Even Loras, the paragon of fairy tale love, allows it to destroy his judgement.

*_{I totally stole this metaphor you guys}

I agree. I'd like to add that in the series all good intentions and noble passions, not just love, are shown as disastrous, if not supported by good judgment and strong will.

[voodooqueen126]

I agree. I'd like to add that in the series all good intentions and noble passions, not just love, are shown as disastrous, if not supported by good judgment and strong will.

Now what does that say about GRRM?

[Lummel]

There certainly is a sense of the emotions as potentially destructive forces in ASOIAF (love is the bane of honour). It adds a nice dynamic to the series I think. I like Queen Cersei's phrase above 'dark and primal' this really is a Romantic conception of emotion that will sweep you to the depths and to the heights.

The nearest male equivelent to Cersei and Lysa loving their children to death that I can see is Mace Tyrell whose love for Margery and Loras has placed them both in very dangerous positions.

[Call me Odie]

A friend of mine asked me; What kind of childhood did Martin have? He is damaged for life.

[Zmeischa]

Now what does that say about GRRM?

That he is smart? :D

I believe it was Jung who said that it is very difficult to analyze authors of the good fiction using their texts, because their talent is getting in the way :D.

[theladyinspring]

I am grateful to GRRM and this series because he let so many mothers live. Whatever their attributes, the fact that so many are still around and distinct from each other makes me very happy. In so many fantasy books it seems the rule is "first, kill all the mothers".

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

Interesting topic Queen Cersei I. You and I read these (and probably most other) books very differently. I tend to read them quite superficially I think, accepting the social structures and characters for what they are and as part of the world GRRM is trying to describe. The various messages and subtexts that may, or may not, be there are secondary to me, while you seem to be most (?) interested in those and how the story relates to our own world and times on many different levels.

Given the social structure of the time (going on a rough feudal approximation), fathers in general were less active and engaged in their children's lives, as were noble/royal parents in general. So we shouldn't be surprised if royal/noble parents in ASOIAF behave differently from what we'd expect today, and if there's a marked difference in how fathers treat their children compared with how mothers treat them.

I would just like to echo this, and say that I think a very important quality of the series (i.e. that it's a reasonably realistic fantasy story) would suffer if GRRM started to fiddle with the traditional, medieval, gender roles. The chance for the average reader to immerse oneself in the story, and its setting, would be disrupted if parts of the text turned into obvious social commentary.

Basically, the guys who are “scary fathers” are so because they either intentionally abuse their kids, or simply don’t give a shit about them.

In stark contrast to the bad mothers. The horrible mothers in these books genuinely love their kids, do everything for them, believe totally they are acting in their kids best interests, and nevertheless proceed to be horrible mothers and utterly fuck up their kids regardless.

I don't understand. Is love for one's children, and the desire to do what's best for them, a guarantee that everything will turn out fine? Is a character to be rewarded by the author for displaying such traits? You speak of sacred cows, but I don't think an author ("even" a fantasy author) has any obligation to adhere to such. As implied above, the difference in how the horrible parents destroy their kids is a natural result from how these people are shaped by the society in which they live.

Also, I'd like to add that, despicable though she is, I pity Cersei. She is a horrible, horrible person, but I blame Tywin for most of that. All the Lannister kids are fucked up, and it's quite heavily implied in the text that Tywin is an extremely authoritative figure with a lot of ideas of how they were supposed to live their lives, regardless of their own feelings. I'd give Cersei a hug before sending her off to the executioner. Tywin deserved no less than having his hated son place a crossbow bolt in his groin while he was taking a shit.

[Woman of War]

The idea of maternity and childhood has undergone serious changes throughout history. In the 16th to 18th century children of higher nobility very often were sent away to wetnurses to be cared and only returned to their families' castles or manors at the age of three, in good health or not, to be educated being lords and ladies. Only with the changing ideas of the the bourgeois family, that did not rely anymore on the family name but on the families abilities, craftsmanship and business, an intense and concerned formation of children from early on was seen as desirable. And emotional investment was less hard when less children died as babies. The philosophical background was given by the ideas of Rousseau, described in "Emile", where children were seen as inherently good, they only needed careful loving guidance by their parents - and the idea of childhood as a separate stage of life was born, to be reserved for leaning and developing, a direct result of the age of enlightment. A little later the idea of the housewife who is exclusively responsible for the upbringing of the children came up, a rather modern invention, never before the society afforded itself a group of people who did nothing than childcare, before bringing children up just "happened" during everyday's activities, it takes a whole village to raise a child. ( in contrast to the age of enlightment see the christian idea of inherent sin where it was the duty of parents to chastise and punish children to drive out their inborn wickedness)

Before the modern idea of childhood, and this is the view of westeros, childhood ended directly when adulthood began, no protected space of learning and development was inserted in between.

So the westerosi idea of motherhood is not totally going along with the historical timesetting and the historical idea of childhood but is more influenced by our present day ideas of maternity. So is the the idea of the predominant influence of marital care on children. The westerosi mothers with all their flaws are, compared to mothers in a comparable timesetting, really engaged mothers, investing a lot emotionally into their children and like modern mothers they do it well or not so well. Except for Tyrion who grew up without any care by a mother, it is not said that there was only a wetnurse for a baby, the mothers all were very present if they were alive. And this overly nurturing, overidentifying behaviour of Cersei and Lysa is a really modern concept of poor mothering, actually a luxury, a peasants family would have sent their kids out to look after the goats and be an important part of the household according to their age. And if one died you could not afford to weep for long without going mad, it happened too often.

About the changes of the concept of childood and the mother's role in it read Elisabeth Badinter "le conflit - la femme et la mère", don't know the English title

And we should not analyse the author so much, he is entitled to his privacy