Reading Women In Westoros

[Winter's Knight]

Hah, owh. Confession: I identify the most with Jaime Lannister, personally, and I have been thinking why oh why for *ages*.

Apparently I wish to be a maimed approaching middle age man with only a vague purpose in life and a strange tendency towards monogamy. I have problems relating to my children, I want to boink my sister and crush on an unattractive woman. I used to be great at stuff but now I am sort of a joke. Oh and I like having attitude problems.

So you know, what gives? Time to see the therapist? :crying:

EDIT: And he's not even female! Woe.

Ha! I identify most with Brienne, Tyrion and Cersei-what does that say about me? :stillsick:

[brashcandy]

No I don't, there's no need to be condescending about it either. I was expressing that I would genuinely rather fight and die than accept, or appear to accept, conditions like that. It goes against everything I believe in to give people the satisfaction. As for the last part, you're probably right - like I said, I'm not sure if my way or Sansa's way is better, but it's an explanation as to why I don't understand or relate to Sansa, that's all.

Do you understand my point though? Ultimately, until you're in an awful situation, you really have no idea of how you would react. It's nice to envision that you would fight and claw your way out or die in the attempt, but mayhaps you might also bide your time and wait for the best opportunity to get out. And I didn't mean to sound condescending to you (apologies); I guess I'm frustrated with constantly seeing this idea that Sansa's survival strategy in KL amounted to a defeatist attitude and that she was a weak character because of it. I think the fact that Sansa managed to survive that ordeal says all it needs to about the strength and dignity that she has within her. Sansa herself contemplated killing Joffrey and accepting the fact that she would fall to her death as well. So, she wasn't without that kind of feeling in the early days after Ned's death either. However, she commits to "being a good girl," and this is something that helps her to evade worse torture and brutality, and gets her out alive.

[Lady Storm]

The way I see it is that people can like the stories they like, and identify with what attracts them the most. But the underlying point to all of this is a misunderstanding of what constitutes a hero/heroine. The "too cool for school" variety is all well and good, but there's also heroism and courage in having quiet dignity and a soft word to offer in place of a strong arm. These qualities don't make someone less heroic, and in some respects, they actually make them more so. I think Martin's text is filled with women and men who do possess traditionally heroic or "smart-ass" qualities, but nonetheless manage to do some really great things. I wish there was more appreciation to go around for all of them.

I didn't want to imply that these real-life traits aren't heroi and I agree we should give people (fictional and non-fictional) more credit for it.

But they are not the traditional definition of the heroic character. And there is a reason why the traditional hero (warrior princes or powerful magician) is attractive to most of the readers. We want to be the protagonists of our lives (and if possibly, the world) and the world should be made in such a manner that our best traits are the most important ones in the world. And the women in AGOIAF are simply not like that.

Hah, owh. Confession: I identify the most with Jaime Lannister, personally, and I have been thinking why oh why for *ages*.

I think part of Jamies charm comes from the fact that he's the sexy villain going trough a change that will make him one of the good guys :)

I guess it's attractive to have insight in your self and go against bad things even if they atract you (more than the male-incest-non existent parenting charm) :D

[deleted01]

Do you understand my point though? Ultimately, until you're in an awful situation, you really have no idea of how you would react. It's nice to envision that you would fight and claw your way out or die in the attempt, but mayhaps you might also bide your time and wait for the best opportunity to get out. And I didn't mean to sound condescending to you (apologies); I guess I'm frustrated with constantly seeing this idea that Sansa's survival strategy in KL amounted to a defeatist attitude and that she was a weak character because of it. I think the fact that Sansa managed to survive that ordeal says all it needs to about the strength and dignity that she has within her. Sansa herself contemplated killing Joffrey and accepting the fact that she would fall to her death as well. So, she wasn't without that kind of feeling in the early days after Ned's death, either. However, she commits to "being a good girl," and this is something that helps her to evade worse torture and brutality, and gets her out alive.

Firstly, I'll just say that I always appreciate your posts because they're always well-written, and you contribute a hell of a lot of good stuff to discussions, but in topics like this I tend to get snappy, so apologies as well.

Secondly, yes I do get your point absolutely, and I appreciate that Sansa's way of dealing with her situation was probably the best way. If Arya had been in her shoes, she would have been dead pretty quickly, or at least in much worse shape than Sansa. I admire the strength it takes to remain courteous and appear calm in such a horrible situation, and I would not be able to do it. That's most likely a weakness on my part, which I fully accept, but I simply state it because it explains why I don't "get" Sansa. It's not that I have a problem with feminine girls, it's just that being like that has never been acceptable for me in my life. Hell, maybe I missed out. But I learned at a very young age that the people who are supposed to take care of you don't always do so, and that there is no one you can rely on to rescue you except yourself. Despite this, I definitely do admire someone who can go through all Sansa went through and come out relatively happy and almost the same as she was before. It takes courage to look your abuser in the face and smile sweetly for him; it's just a different kind of courage to the one I have/would have, perhaps.

[Elder Sister]

Hey, Jaime is hot. You know he could get you into alot of trouble, but you would have fun getting there!

But also, I think the big draw is like Lady Storm says - he's an active participant in his destiny. We see him change and evolve. Arya is the same way. I think readers get frustrated with characters like Sansa and Brienne and even Sam, because we don't see the change as suddenly...in Sansa's case, it comes much more gradually.

[Lyanna Stark]

I didn't want to imply that these real-life traits aren't heroi and I agree we should give people (fictional and non-fictional) more credit for it.

But they are not the traditional definition of the heroic character. And there is a reason why the traditional hero (warrior princes or powerful magician) is attractive to most of the readers. We want to be the protagonists of our lives (and if possibly, the world) and the world should be made in such a manner that our best traits are the most important ones in the world. And the women in AGOIAF are simply not like that.

Well, I think some women are to a degree, although I think the reason many people strongly dislike Dany's arc in ADWD for instance is only partly because Meereen feels pointless, but because Dany doesn't do anything warrior princess like anymore. She tries to be a politician and doesn't really do very well, which means she fails to be a hero and she also fails both the female heroine trope and she fails the genre tropes, too.

I think part of Jamies charm comes from the fact that he's the sexy villain going trough a change that will make him one of the good guys :)

I guess it's attractive to have insight in your self and go against bad things even if they atract you (more than the male-incest-non existent parenting charm) :D

Hehehe yes, but I think for me, it does have to do more with the traits we have in common, since I am a parent and I am doubting my parenting skills. I have (had?) attitude problems and I am not as pretty as I used to be, and I took a lot of my brilliance when I was young for granted. Yeah I know, woe for my lost youth and lots of looking back with some wistfulness on what I turned into and how it differs from what I had in mind. So, I think I do know why, I just don't particularly *like* the fact that the Kingslayer is whom I look to for identification. ;)

(Also Jaime is just sooo monogamous, WTF seriously?)

I have never attempted murder of 9 year olds by defenestration tho, honest. :leaving:

[Tumnas the Torpid]

It takes courage to look your abuser in the face and smile sweetly for him; it's just a different kind of courage to the one I have/would have, perhaps.

I don't disagree with what you were saying. I'd like to believe that I would have shoved Joffrey from the battlements and then laughed in Cersei's face when she called for my head.

But if Sansa were to have acted that way, what would have happened? Maybe she gets to replace Cressen in the Clash prologue? As it stands, Sansa keeps her head, and uses it to witness plenty of interest in King's Landing - through the specific lens of a child held hostage by ruthless people for her reproductive and political value. As I imagine that this is probably a realistic consequence of a feudal society, I think the material adds tremendous weight to the series.

[butterbumps!]

I think you and I are saying the same thing, but I did a poor job of expressing myself. Sorry. :) I agree with everything you wrote, although I don't really see that people are 'hating' on Sansa because she's a girl, necessarily, or because she's more into the 'feminine' arts, unlike Arya.

To me, the biggest reason that Sansa is vilified at times is the perception that she is weak, or has taken the easier route. Much like Sam is not a favorite. Don't misunderstand me; that's not MY perception of Sansa at all, but it seems that it's human nature to kick those who show/exhibit weakness.

I dunno - I'm not nearly as bright as some of you are. In any case, it's an interesting topic. :)

I don't think we're in complete disagreement, but I do think that there is sometimes a kind of "reading block" when it comes to Sansa and Cat because of their acceptance of more traditional feminine roles in this context. I think that your mention of Sam here is also a good indication of what some of us might be getting at. It seems that "strength" is frequently perceived as physical prowess, inclination toward violence or boldness of some kind or another. This kind of expression of strength is limited in its view, in that there are ways to be strong without extroverted exertions. Those who do not wield weapons or adopt physical solutions tend to be overlooked, which includes those characters who's adoption of feminine activities and/ or introverted development lead to more subtle expressions of character.

[brashcandy]

I didn't want to imply that these real-life traits aren't heroi and I agree we should give people (fictional and non-fictional) more credit for it.

But they are not the traditional definition of the heroic character. And there is a reason why the traditional hero (warrior princes or powerful magician) is attractive to most of the readers. We want to be the protagonists of our lives (and if possibly, the world) and the world should be made in such a manner that our best traits are the most important ones in the world. And the women in AGOIAF are simply not like that.

Hmmm, I think I understand your point, as it relates to you living vicariously through "fantastical" characters who have more agency and authority in their lives (something we all desire). And I'm sure you appreciate that the women in Westeros society are hampered by the patriarchal structures of that society, as we women are today as well, although we have a lot more options and avenues for empowerment. What I just want to highlight is this though: Martin may have portrayed the women in Westeros as existing under certain limitations, but in no way do I think he wants us to value them as less heroic or less worthy of admiration. We might have to look a bit harder, and do more analysis (the purpose of this thread), but the qualities are there. I think we'll be seeing them having a lot more sway and autonomy in their lives in the next two books.

[Elder Sister]

I don't think we're in complete disagreement, but I do think that there is sometimes a kind of "reading block" when it comes to Sansa and Cat because of their acceptance of more traditional feminine roles in this context. I think that your mention of Sam here is also a good indication of what some of us might be getting at. It seems that "strength" is frequently perceived as physical prowess, inclination toward violence or boldness of some kind or another. This kind of expression of strength is limited in its view, in that there are ways to be strong without extroverted exertions. Those who do not wield weapons or adopt physical solutions tend to be overlooked, which includes those characters who's adoption of feminine activities and/ or introverted development lead to more subtle expressions of character.

Agreed. And I don't think it's necessarily a male vs. female perception...I guess that's what I was attempting to communicate.

[deleted01]

I don't disagree with what you were saying. I'd like to believe that I would have shoved Joffrey from the battlements and then laughed in Cersei's face when she called for my head.

But if Sansa were to have acted that way, what would have happened? Maybe she gets to replace Cressen in the Clash prologue? As it stands, Sansa keeps her head, and uses it to witness plenty of interest in King's Landing - through the specific lens of a child held hostage by ruthless people for her reproductive and political value. As I imagine that this is probably a realistic consequence of a feudal society, I think the material adds tremendous weight to the series.

I do wonder about this. If Joffrey had been killed by Sansa, would the Hound have let the other KG (I forget who it was) kill Sansa? No King, no Kingsguard, thanks to Joffrey dismissing Ser Barristan. And is Cersei really that stupid as to have Sansa killed? With Joffrey gone, it would have made the other contenders for the throne even more set on getting it.

But I digress ;)

[Lady Storm]

What I just want to highlight is this though: Martin may have portrayed the women in Westeros as existing under certain limitations, but in no way do I think he wants us to value them as less heroic or less worthy of admiration. We might have to look a bit harder, and do more analysis (the purpose of this thread), but the qualities are there. I think we'll be seeing them having a lot more sway and autonomy in their lives in the next two books.

I agree with your point completely - that's what I mean when I say that they aren't "heroes" (I will use the term "heroes" here to refer to the genre ideal).

But I don't know is it bad for the male characters or readers, bad for the female characters or readers, neither or both.

Well, I think some women are to a degree, although I think the reason many people strongly dislike Dany's arc in ADWD for instance is only partly because Meereen feels pointless, but because Dany doesn't do anything warrior princess like anymore. She tries to be a politician and doesn't really do very well, which means she fails to be a hero and she also fails both the female heroine trope and she fails the genre tropes, too.

That's a part of what I wanted to say. And I don't dislike her, on the contrary. But she is a source of frustration to me.

Hehehe yes, but I think for me, it does have to do more with the traits we have in common, since I am a parent and I am doubting my parenting skills. I have (had?) attitude problems and I am not as pretty as I used to be, and I took a lot of my brilliance when I was young for granted. Yeah I know, woe for my lost youth and lots of looking back with some wistfulness on what I turned into and how it differs from what I had in mind. So, I think I do know why, I just don't particularly *like* the fact that the Kingslayer is whom I look to for identification. ;)

(Also Jaime is just sooo monogamous, WTF seriously?)

I have never attempted murder of 9 year olds by defenestration tho, honest. :leaving:

Well, there are other characters who go trought these issues, but Jamie seems to be the most active one about it :)

(Like Elder Sister said)

[Dimadick]

Recently, I was reading a critique of the book Dracula. The author complains that Victorian heroines are largely sweet, passive, maternal, and morally flawless. He then launches into an attack on Lucy, a minor female character in the book, castigating her for everything from lacking independence (using her inherited riches rather than working for a living—despite the fact that it’s 1897), to being vain and frivolous, to (and this is where his most vicious, angry criticism comes in)—being a flirt and, as he puts it, “a tease.” He speaks with anger and disgust of how Lucy enjoys trifling with men (which naturally makes her insipid, nasty, and shallow), how her secret excitement at getting three separate marriage proposals proves her moral degeneracy, and then proceeds to dub her “a cock tease.”

I think this is another occasion where a text gives more information on its author rather than its supposed subject. Basically said author rejects passivity but blames Lucy Westenra for flirting and enjoying her romances. For making definite decisions for her own affairs. Using terms as "cock tease" suggests that the author has issues of his/her own with flirtatious women.

He then reviews the character of Mina Harker, whom he dubs strong, independent (she works before she is married), not “a tease” like Lucy, and therefore good.

And so loyal to Jonathan Harker, that she is willing to marry following his mental breakdown and his hair-going prematurely white. She is about as realistic as Penelope from the "Odyssey", willing to wait twenty years for her husband.

able to protect themselves in all situations

By definition invulnerable and invincible? Would you care to point at examples of that standard? Because I can't recall any human literary character fitting that example.

sexual but never willing to use sex to get ahead

In other words, having sex without ulterior motives? Sounds like a male fantasy.

hardworking but not overtly ambitious for power

Not willing to break the glass ceiling. Got it. So that they are useful team players but not threaten the male leaders. How original.

name='Winter's Knight' timestamp='1339863539' post='3295982'] One of the most common things said about Sansa is that she is “wrong.” She doesn’t try to escape; she doesn’t mouth off to her captors

So she gets to keep her head on her shoulders. Live to fight another day. I think it speaks volumes about her survival instinct.

'In the end, the “good vs. bad” female thing depresses me, especially since is generally accompanied by a passive/ active or tomboy/ conventional girly girl thing. It seem that some define characters so much by whether or not they rebel against some of their societies conventions for femininity that they cannot see the true characters of the females in question. Brienne, for instance, strikes me as the closest parallel to Sansa in the book. ... Yet this comparison is seldom made (though both are frequently dubbed, unfairly, imo, “boring”) because Brienne fights and Sansa doesn’t, therefore they have nothing in common.

While I can see their similarities, Brienne has decided to embrace an unconventional way of life. Sansa has yet to make real decisions of her future. She is preoccupied with day-to-day survival. While Brienne has her moments, I do find her less interesting than several other characters. Many of our major characters are engaged in games of power, deceit, and manipulation. Many others are risking their lives for personal gain. Brienne has no agenda of her own and gains nothing from her travels. She won't create nor break empires, won't rise in the social or military hierarchy, and will likely remain a knight errant for the foreseeable future. She is about as interesting as Eddard Stark. A secondary character in someone else's tale.

the scorn or demonization for using sex to manipulate people that Cersei does

Cersei manipulates Jaime for decades, and makes key decisions for his life. Because he was content to let his lover do the thinking for him. She is rather victimized in her relationship with Robert, Lancel was all to eager to act like Jaime, Jr, Taena Merryweather and the Kettleblacks were manipulating HER using sex. I don't see her as much of a manipulative femme fatale. She is demonized because she adopts some of the worst traits of both Aerys II and Robert.

There is also a great deal of ambivalence regarding women actively wanting power. Cersei is one of the few females who wants it for it’s own sake, and this is very much a part of her demonization. Yes, an issue is clearly that Cersei does not know how to use power. However, her wanting it in itself is portrayed as corrupt and “Unnatural”, and her incompetence in having power (after she’s wanted it so much) can be seen in a certain light as a didactic enforcement of this message.

It would work better as a message If she failed because she is a woman, and if male authority figures were, as a rule, more competent. The world of Ice and Fire instead contains a long number of kings, hand's of kings and other power players of both sexes who made monumental blunders. The Iron Throne seems to consume its occupants at least, the Greyjoys self-destruct when reaching for power, the Starks have a tendency to loose their heads in more way than one, and Hizdahr turns into a "toom tumbard" (empty suit) in a critical moment.

One thing that GRRM seems to add to the list of things that “good” females simply do not do, is obeying and differing to their patriarch. (Assuming their patriarch is not evil or batshit crazy.) When females disobey their father’s the result is almost always misery and disaster; the father’s are always the wiser and have the right of it. Such females are either intensely demonized and portrayed with no sympathy (Cersei, Lysa, a few others); or (more rarely) portrayed as good but foolish and woefully misguided, whose actions have wrought great havoc on numerous people (Arrianne, Sansa, Lyanna—the last who comes the closest to getting something approaching real sympathy for her choices, but does not quite get there.)

While Tywin is a more competent political player than Cersei, He is far from an exemplary patriarch. None of his children are particularly obedient. None live up to his expectations, and the implications are that these expectations were impossible to begin with. Hoster Tully seems villainous and his "honor" sounds hollow when considering his treatment of Lyssa. (I don't particularly care for cradle-robbing Jon Arryn either, but that is a different story). Arianne's actions are a result of a fatal flaw in most plans of Doran Martell. He never remembers to inform the interested parties. As Barristan Says: "Your father keeps his secrets well, Prince Quentyn. Too well, I fear." Sansa makes a huge leap of faith, placing her trust in the kindness of Joffrey and Cersei. It turns into a blunder because both characters are merciless. How was she supposed to know? If Lyanna took decisions, we are still not aware of their content and motivation. Too many half-truths and little to no definite information.

Few women who disobey their patriarch are given true sympathy, and Sansa’s doing so is shown as disastrous, on many levels.

So lets turn our attention to obedient little girls, willing to act according to the wishes of their fathers. We have two prominent examples. The young Catelyn Tully and Margaery Tyrell, essentially married to strangers for the sake of political alliances. Do you think they get more sympathy from readers?

[Dimadick]

Or let us see an example when someone follows his patriachs orders and that is why he ends up dead. that was Quentyn. He was a loyal son, too loyal, when Dany turned him down he should have left, but he didn't want to displease his father, he wanted to fulfill what he was given, and got fried.

He was also afraid of what a "welcome" his family would reserve for him in case he returned empty handed. According to his thoughts: "His father would speak no words of rebuke... but the disappointment would be there in his eyes. His sister would be scornful, the Sand Snakes would mock him with smiles sharp as swords, and Lord Yronwood, his second father, who had sent his own son along to keep him safe..."

Its cute that he Quentyn, ward of Anders Yronwood, seems to fear dissapointing Anders more than anything.

[ARYa_Nym]

I see how an abused and ignored women who loves her children can get paranoid. I see how a girl with too much power and too little guidance can make terrible decisions while just discovering her sexuality. I see how a kidnapped, tortured, scared girl can take a "Blend in, be careful attitude"

I think Arya is capable of this too but it often gets ignored. It is said that Arya always impulsively reacts physically when presented with a problem but if that were true she'd be dead now. I don't think she would have done it had she been in KL but without Jaqen she had to be a mouse in Harrenhal. & I think Roose or Gregor's men would have given her a worse death than what she would have gotten in KL. The only one worse than them to me is Ramsay.

Anyways, I think this is part of the reason why the FM appealed to her. She saw that Jaqen was able to kill any type of person with his power and wanted to learn how to do that too. It's not even about swordfighting which is another reason why she should not be linked with Brienne and Asha. She will learn to kill people in other ways that is better for her. She can't go toe to toe with a grown man. It takes years to be like Brienne. A short time with Syrio wouldn't do that. Arya also is scrawny and petite. Brienne's style of fighting also stands out too much. Arya is training to be an assassin.

As DR. Pepper said in this thread:

Arya's training as a Faceless Man doesn't have anything to do with the martial arts or sword fighting. She's receiving a top-notch education in critical thinking skills, evasion, deceit, and intelligence gathering. There haven't even been any examples within the House of Black and White that they train their acolytes in hand-to-hand combat. Jaqen didn't use physical prowess to take the three lives he owed Arya. The goal in the training isn't to make killers able to physically best their targets, it's to be able to assassinate with the appearance that the death was of a natural cause.

http://asoiaf.wester...er/page__st__20

Cat saw Arya as a warrior in ACoK but I noticed that GRRM uses the term warrior loosely.

Dornish women

Do the women of Dorne fight?

Some do. The Sand Snakes, for instance. But it's not the rule.

Nymeria was a war leader but not a warrior -- that is, a commander rather than a combatent.

http://www.westeros..../Dornish_women/

In particular, given that Nymeria was a warrior-queen, is there a certain amazon tradition?

The Rhoynar did impact Dorne in a number of ways, some of which will be revealed in later books. Women definitely have more rights in Dorne, but I would not call it an "Amazon" tradition, necessarily. Nymeria had more in common with someone like Daenerys or Joan d'Arc than with Brienne or Xena the Warrior Princess.

http://www.westeros...._Old_Questions/

Going by this Dany will count as a warrior woman by the series end because she will command armies and fight in battle using Drogon. Rhaenys was less likely to call herself a warrior because she didn't fight with Dark Sister like Visenya did but she still counts as a warrior woman. I don't mind that Dany doesn't do combat fighting. Drogon is way better than a sword imo. He is not to be messed with. It would be cool to do both but it's not necessary.

Well, I think some women are to a degree, although I think the reason many people strongly dislike Dany's arc in ADWD for instance is only partly because Meereen feels pointless, but because Dany doesn't do anything warrior princess like anymore. She tries to be a politician and doesn't really do very well, which means she fails to be a hero and she also fails both the female heroine trope and she fails the genre tropes, too.

I think that they don't want her to be a warrior queen anymore because when Dany did decide to do something in her last chapter in ADWD she gets criticized for embracing fire and blood. I've read several times now that Dany should go to Vaes Dothrak and be with the crones instead of invade Westeros. :stillsick: I think that's very insulting.

So many people want her to step aside for this thief Aegon. Why should she? Also, only Dany gets critiqued for being a foreigner. Aegon has never set foot on Westeros either. He learned about Westeros from other people.

Not to mention he's obnoxious. Dany is too but she gets more criticism than he does.

Aegon says of Cersei:

"Who is there left in Westeros to oppose us? A woman."

Aegon says of Dany:

"...She will be my bride, Lord Connington will see to it... "

"Daenerys is Prince Rhaegar's sister, but I am Rhaegar's son. I am the only dragon that you need."

He wanted to use dragons as warfare too. Lots of people would. Even Jon liked the idea of them at the Wall.

I think people are just biased haters against Dany. They're obsessed with her too. They talk about her every day. I don't think it's just because Dany is a female but because she is a Targaryen too. Many are obsessed with looking for ways to discredit them.

Dany was horrible in ADWD but GRRM clearly did it on purpose. He wanted to show how hard ruling is. Dany will bounce back in the next two books imo.

So lets turn our attention to obedient little girls, willing to act according to the wishes of their fathers. We have two prominent examples. The young Catelyn Tully and Margaery Tyrell, essentially married to strangers for the sake of political alliances. Do you think they get more sympathy from readers?

I might be in the minority but I like sassy Margaery especially on the show. I only like her, Olenna, and Loras of the Tyrells though. I don't mind that they were only loyal to themselves and leech off of other people like the Lannisters do. They get shit done. They did what the Starks failed to do and that's killing Joffrey although I was extremely disappointed by his death scene. I was expecting more since I waited for so long.

[butterbumps!]

I like a lot of your points in the parts that I snipped, Arya Nym, especially the observations about Arya not being trained in "badass" fighting a la Kill Bill with the FM. I wanted to isolate this part because I disagree a little bit on some areas, and to expand on thoughts I'd been harboring regarding Dany's interactions with women.


I think that they don't want her to be a warrior queen anymore because when Dany did decide to do something in her last chapter in ADWD she gets criticized for embracing fire and blood. I've read several times now that Dany should go to Vaes Dothrak and be with the crones instead of invade Westeros. I think that's very insulting.

For this conversation, I'd like to explore this a bit further in terms of the institution of the crones and what it means. I know some posters have suggested she "should" do this. (quick disclaimer- I've said that I think she may end up being taken there, but not necessarily that she "should" remain there). I think on one hand there is a point to be made that Dany fully embraced the role of a khaleesi, and integrated herself in Dothraki culture. The only requirement of a Khaleesi is that when your Khal dies, you must join the other widows. She continues to call herself "khaleesi," yet blatantly ignores this sacred custom.

But what does this sacred custom imply? On one hand it means that a wife of the Khal only has power so long as her husband is alive. Once a khaleesi no longer has her husband's power, she excuses herself from the world entirely, living out her days in a sort of religious sanctuary by the "Womb of the World." The crones are sacred and respected wise women, the closest to spiritual leaders we see of the Dothraki people. Khals might have worldly power, but it is the crones who are revered at the top of the hierarchy. Even the nearby lake is called a "womb," suggesting a highly female-centric divinity. So, to be more precise, a woman loses her worldly power on her husband's death, but is then apotheosized into the most sacred spiritual coterie, to whom men (and women) come from all over to kneel and pay respect -- a khaleesi's worldly power is replaced with a spiritual, religious power, and this is thought of as a great honor.

On the other hand, it is another example of the forced cloistering of women. The way the Dothraki treat women is mind-boggling (as chattel, constant threat of rape for non-Dothraki, and a kind of free-love, everyone shares amongst their own). It seems suspect to me that all of this "honor" is bestowed to the women bereaved of important husbands given the way they treat/ think of women under normal circumstances. Is going to the crones of Vaes Dothrak truly a kind of deification of women, believed the holiest of holies in a culture that otherwise seems to have little respect for women, or is it just another "gilded cage?" I would like to point out that while a khaleesi is sent to a sanctuary, a Khal's bloodriders are meant to perish alongside him-- the important male figures must die with their Khal while a khaleesi "joins the gods" so to speak.

So I wonder if going to the crones is "insulting." On one hand, I understand the view some have expressed that Dany embraced (and continues to embrace) the role of Khaleesi, and in doing so, should not pick and choose the customs she wants to follow. She framed her power in terms of "khaleesi" so she must pay her dues, so to speak. I don't know if joining the crones is punishment so much, but a custom of female-worship, and supposedly a great honor. On the other hand, it reminds me of the Emperor and Turtle parable (I think it's this), where a man takes a turtle from the wild and wants to turn it into a god. The turtle of course prefers to live a meager life in the wild than be killed so that it may serve as a deity for worshippers to pray to. This kind of forced removal from the worldly for the sake of spiritual reification offends my modern sensibilities, and to this end it does feel like an institutionalized oppressive practice, and on some level, I agree with Dany's refusal to go.

This leads me to some questions I raised in another thread about Dany's rebellion against practices that demean women, remove the agency of women, or persist to reinforce systems of female oppression. We see Dany rebel against joining the crones, as well as refuse to wash Hizdar’s feet and be examined by his family prior to their marriage. I know that she’s criticized for not respecting traditions in societies she intends to rule, while others praise these rebellious acts as Dany’s assertion of power and agency against oppressive customs.

I think there is a real quandary here. As I said in the other thread, I can only praise her rebellious acts so far given the fact that she finds some of these practices problematic only as they pertain to her. Dany is exclusively the woman who holds power in her own right as Queen. She has the power to change customs outright, such as ban the practice of gyno exams for brides, or take a stance on voluntary retirement to the crones. Now, I’m not saying that she ought to have enforced these changes to customs, or have enacted a successful “Equal Rights Act.” Where I personally feel disappointment is that she does not consider the plight of other women in these institutional practices. I’m not asking her to come up with a strategy to overturn oppressive practices, but to at least consider the systems she’s personally rebelling against in a wider context. As it stands, she picks and chooses which customs she wants to personally follow, but does not challenge (even in her own thoughts) the overall systems that foster these sorts of oppression. I can’t speak for everyone, but this is one of the reasons I can only praise her individual instances of bucking the system so far. Though I agree with the stances she takes on these matters, it disappoints me that it is less about women’s rights and more about what Dany personally does not want to do.

I know that it terms of physical violence to women, Dany feels a great deal of empathy for her gender, and there is something to be said to that end. She also includes provisions where a man cannot sell his wife into slavery, so we do have some seeds of equality forming. I’ve been known to criticize Dany for being far too myopic in her views in a variety of matters, but I’m not looking to assassinate her character here by any means. I just want to express my disappointment that I see potential for Dany to open her view on this topic, especially given the fact that as the one Queen who rules in her own right, she could bring a form of equality to Westeros or elsewhere at some point.


So many people want her to step aside for this thief Aegon. Why should she? Also, only Dany gets critiqued for being a foreigner. Aegon has never set foot on Westeros either. He learned about Westeros from other people.
Not to mention he's obnoxious. Dany is too but she gets more criticism than he does.
He wanted to use dragons as warfare too. Lots of people would. Even Jon liked the idea of them at the Wall.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't feel that talking too much about Aegon is worth the effort. I don't believe he'll have the throne in the end, and additionally, he's not a POV, he hasn't actually ruled anything, and we have very little information about him in general, so it does not give much to talk about. I take Dany more seriously as a contender than Aegon, plus we have a whole lot of story devoted to her that lends itself to more conversation. I'd just assumed that most people don't take him that seriously, and when he does come up in threads, I think the general consensus is that he's pretty lame and probably incompetent. I haven't seen much praise for Aegon.

I think what people talk about is how Dany might react to him, not necessarily that she should turn over the throne. Dany believes that she is the next person in line with a Targaryen claim for the throne, and this belief is what fuels her desire for Westeros (as well as vengeance for her family). But what happens if someone who is of her family and ahead of her in the succession is actually alive and well, also pushing his claim? (suspend whether one believes he's actually Aegon for a moment). If at face value, if it seems that Aegon is who he says he is, will it cause Dany to reflect on her perceived "rightfulness" as the last Targ heir and continue to press her claim in spite of this, or will she choose another course? I know I'm very curious as to how she will take the possibility of another Targaryen heir at first, even if it does turn out that he's a Blackfyre or someone else, but I don't believe that she ought to turn anything over to him or anything like that.

[PatrickStormborn]

For this conversation, I'd like to explore this a bit further in terms of the institution of the crones and what it means. I know some posters have suggested she "should" do this. (quick disclaimer- I've said that I think she may end up being taken there, but not necessarily that she "should" remain there). I think on one hand there is a point to be made that Dany fully embraced the role of a khaleesi, and integrated herself in Dothraki culture. The only requirement of a Khaleesi is that when your Khal dies, you must join the other widows. She continues to call herself "khaleesi," yet blatantly ignores this sacred custom.

The problem is that Dany did not choose to become Drogo's khaleesi. She embraced the role, yes, but she never actively chose it. So why should she go and join the Crones at Vaes Dothrak?

She still calls herself "Khaleesi", but her role is no longer one of a khaleesi; she rules as a female khal now.

This leads me to some questions I raised in another thread about Dany's rebellion against practices that demean women, remove the agency of women, or persist to reinforce systems of female oppression. We see Dany rebel against joining the crones, as well as refuse to wash Hizdar’s feet and be examined by his family prior to their marriage. I know that she’s criticized for not respecting traditions in societies she intends to rule, while others praise these rebellious acts as Dany’s assertion of power and agency against oppressive customs.

I agree with you on this. I would love to see Dany overturning the patriarchal structure of Westeros, and I think it's quite a likely posibility (what else is the purpose of Dorne in the long-run, if not to establish a liberal precedent?). She couldn't really change much in Meereen because she was still trying to work with the nobles. If she had embraced fire and blood as soon as she started her rule, I'm sure we would have seen some huge changes with regards to the treatment of women.

[butterbumps!]

The problem is that Dany did not choose to become Drogo's khaleesi. She embraced the role, yes, but she never actively chose it. So why should she go and join the Crones at Vaes Dothrak?

She still calls herself "Khaleesi", but her role is no longer one of a khaleesi; she rules as a female khal now.

I think we're mostly in agreement. After I posted above, I realized I'd forgotten to mention a condition of a "khaleesi losing power on her husband's death." Whether Khaleeses lost their power upon their husbands' deaths doesn't really pertain to Dany, since it is precisely upon her husband's death that she attains power in her own right. I agree that it makes little sense for Dany to go into retirement at this point. If I take the purpose of the Dosh Khaleen to be positive in the sense that women are revered, and this is a way to provide for women who would otherwise have no way to live out respected lives according to Dothraki customs, then Dany does not even need this "safety blanket." It's quite pointless for Dany to retire as a "powerless wife" if she has power and means.

[ARYa_Nym]

I like a lot of your points in the parts that I snipped, Arya Nym, especially the observations about Arya not being trained in "badass" fighting a la Kill Bill with the FM. I wanted to isolate this part because I disagree a little bit on some areas, and to expand on thoughts I'd been harboring regarding Dany's interactions with women.

I originally thought that Arya was going to become a Boss Bitch like O'ren Ishiii but the FM isn't that type of organization.

EDIT: Unrelated reply but I think it's significant that GRRM said that Arya's hero Nymeria is like Dany. Dany always says if I look back I am lost. Nymeria definitely was like that when she burned all her ships so she couldn't go back. I'm pretty sure that Arya will be in Dany's storyline. I can see Arya admiring her as long as she doesn't say anything negative about Ned/the Starks.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't feel that talking too much about Aegon is worth the effort. I don't believe he'll have the throne in the end, and additionally, he's not a POV, he hasn't actually ruled anything, and we have very little information about him in general, so it does not give much to talk about. I take Dany more seriously as a contender than Aegon, plus we have a whole lot of story devoted to her that lends itself to more conversation. I'd just assumed that most people don't take him that seriously, and when he does come up in threads, I think the general consensus is that he's pretty lame and probably incompetent. I haven't seen much praise for Aegon.

I think what people talk about is how Dany might react to him, not necessarily that she should turn over the throne. Dany believes that she is the next person in line with a Targaryen claim for the throne, and this belief is what fuels her desire for Westeros (as well as vengeance for her family). But what happens if someone who is of her family and ahead of her in the succession is actually alive and well, also pushing his claim? (suspend whether one believes he's actually Aegon for a moment). If at face value, if it seems that Aegon is who he says he is, will it cause Dany to reflect on her perceived "rightfulness" as the last Targ heir and continue to press her claim in spite of this, or will she choose another course? I know I'm very curious as to how she will take the possibility of another Targaryen heir at first, even if it does turn out that he's a Blackfyre or someone else, but I don't believe that she ought to turn anything over to him or anything like that.

I don't think people base him being a good king on how he acts but everyone is enamored with Varys' speech. I don't know why people think that Varys was telling the truth anyway. He said that Aegon knows what it's like to be hunted and he most certainly does not. No one was hunting him because he was presumed to be dead. Even Dany and Viserys weren't targeted until Dany got pregnant.

With Aegon Dany already has several reasons to believe he isn't Rhagar's son. For one it's suspicious even without the prophecies. She is only learning about him until just now. Illyrio never told her anything. Barriston wasn't sent to him and he killed the last Blackfyre Pretender. Barriston told her that Varys was whispering in Aerys' ear and Varys is the one who is supposed to have saved him.

If Aegon is a Blackfyre his claim is weaker than Stannis and Doran and Trystane Martell in the Targaryen line of succession. & we don't know how strict the Targ law is about a female not inheriting. It's unclear if female Targaryens come after just male Targaryens or all males with Targaryen blood.

I don't believe that she will step aside for Stannis. He is one of the last of the Usurper's Dogs and she had to flee because of him coming after Dragonstone. Stannis won't step aside for anyone either imo so I don't think she should either.

Many may not agree with me (or do not want to)but I think when she is presented with a Targaryen who has a stronger claim than her she will not step aside but marry him to strengthen their claims but I know we disagree on the textual clues as to what her relationship with Jon will be like.

[romantic]

Only 3 pages in but so much to talk about.

1. Sansa and passivity - IMO Sansa isn't that passive. I know to an outside observer she may appear such but as we are privy to her POV we see, constantly, that she rebels against her situation, that she disagrees with the role assigned her, that she retains her 'Starkness' and she plans about her future. The fact that she can maintain a fairly continuous facade of docility and subservience throughout her experience while internally being stubborn and 'learnful' (aahh, I know that's not a word but I can't think of one that means she keeps learning and growing intellectually through her captivity - and english is my native tongue! :dunce: ) means she is as smart and observant as her sister Arya who is also learning to survive in an alien environment while keeping her 'true self' hidden.

2. (the following was partly posted on another thread)

IMO GRRM treats his male and female characters differently before they start their redemptive arc:-

a. Males seem to perform a morally-repugnant, physically aggressive act whether it be killing (Sandor, Theon, Tyrion though not directly), attempting to kill (Jaime) or participating in gang rape (Tyrion).

b. Females do something stupid and unthinking that starts a whole chain of horrible events (Sansa confiding in Cersei, Cat kidnapping Tyrion, Arianne trying to crown Myrcella) before they are gradually shown to be smarter than first appearances.

Obviously there are characters of either gender that don't fit these categories (Arya kills for her own survival), others who don't get a chance for a redemptive arc (Lysa - who kills and kickstarts everything but is never redeemed) or a male who does something stupid (Robb and Jeyne W.) but overall women (and Sansa was only an 11yo child) seem to perform some of the stupidest acts while men perform some of the most vicious, yet men seem to be forgiven more easily for their repugnant acts. Why?

3. Sansa and Dany are repeatedly criticised for stupidity, etc. but they are young/teen girls (11-13yo and 13-15yo) throughout the current books. The men in similar positions of power, or in Sansa's case opposing her, are mid to late 20s and older with vastly more life experience and wisdom. The only younger men in positions of power (Robb and Jon) are 14-16yo in the books and both, unfortunately, make some unwise decisions that lead to their death.