Family, Duty, Honor: The Catelyn Re-read Project

[BastardlyRock]

I've never judged Cat harshly for her attitude toward Jon because -

1 - It's perfectly understandable, and

2 - It's exactly what Ned wanted (or at least needed.) Cat's cold treatment of Jon is the best way to protect Jon's life.

Ned met Cat for the first time on the day they were wed. After conceiving Robb on their wedding night, Ned rides back to the war the next day. He doesn't know much about Cat at all. After Lyanna's death, Ned has to come up with a plan to keep Jon safe, in order to fulfill his oath to Lyanna. He has no idea if Cat is a good enough mummer to pull off a deception that would have to last for years. That would take skills worthy of Varys. By not telling her, he makes sure her performance will be convincing.

Here's the quote from Bran's aDwD chapter when he sees Ned in the godswood: (Jumping a head just a little bit, but hey, it's relevant, and it's a flashback.)

Ned doesn't pray for Cat to accept Jon. That would destroy the deception. People would be asking all kinds of questions if proud Catelyn Tully Stark treated Ned's bastard as well as her own children.

When Cat insists that Jon must leave Winterfell once Ned is gone, Ned is simply facing the logical results of his own plan. He may protest at the time, but in the end he knows Cat isn't to blame.

ETA If I have to blame someone, I'll blame Robert for his irrational hatred of all Targs, including children.

Good points! I have a couple quick nitpicks... are you saying that had Cat treated Jon warmly then the entire deception would have come crumbling down? I'm not arguing for Ned to have shared the truth with Cat, but simply wondering how suspicious it would have been if Cat hadn't distanced Jon. I'm sure there are instances (even in Westeros) of treating bastards like family. Picture for a second the other scenario, one wherein Cat was warm and welcoming of Jon, and everyone talked about what a caring and gracious woman Cat was because she invested in her husband's bastard the same love as she did her own children. That being said, I do agree that her icy treatment of Jon helped to further cement the farce, but by no means do I think the opposite would have been a breaking point.

The only other thing is in regards to Robert, who I would agree has a hatred for Targs (though maybe not an irrational one) but a hatred that very much stems from a (possibly irrational) fear of Targs/Targ children. The same threat that Robert sees in Targ children to the IT Cat sees in Jon to her own children's claim. The only difference being Cat doesn't try to have Jon murdered...

[BastardlyRock]

Just to elaborate on the Robert/Cat parallel I touched on above, I very much feel Robert's hate for Targs not only stems from his perceived kidnapping of Lyanna, but an unacknowledged fear that Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar, and that he offered her something that Bob could not. This unspoken fear manifests itself into his undying hatred for Rhaegar, Dany, all Targs, being of course Ned's driving force behind keeping Jon secret/safe. Now take Cat, who is reminded of her husband's infidelity when she sees Jon. Those same feelings of insecurity and inadequacy manifest themselves into a hatred for Jon.

[David Selig]

Good points! I have a couple quick nitpicks... are you saying that had Cat treated Jon warmly then the entire deception would have come crumbling down? I'm not arguing for Ned to have shared the truth with Cat, but simply wondering how suspicious it would have been if Cat hadn't distanced Jon. I'm sure there are instances (even in Westeros) of treating bastards like family. Picture for a second the other scenario, one wherein Cat was warm and welcoming of Jon, and everyone talked about what a caring and gracious woman Cat was because she invested in her husband's bastard the same love as she did her own children.

In this case it's way more likely that people will talk about what a doormat she was and consider this quite strange behavior since it goes against the societal norms.

Of course King Bob the doofus wouldn't have noticed anything weird, but the likes of Varys may have gotten suspicious.

[UVA]

Thanks for elaborating. If I understand your point correctly, you are in fact raising the issue of authority dynamics within the family in a patriarchal society.

As I see it, the term that you use, "usurping parental rights" may be a source of misunderstanding because, while it would be correct for a more contemporary setting, it is not really applicable IMO in terms of ASOIAF world building.

I agree that "parental rights" has a modern connotation, which is something I 'm actively trying to avoid in this discussion, and seems to have misrepresented my positions.

There are a couple of angles that I see in the household dynamic/parental authority topic. First, I guess (and this isn't addressing anything you've said in particular) is that I want to demonstrate that it's faulty to apply an analog of a modern model of stepparent/child on Cat in order to assert that she was negligent and abusive. That there is no social or legal analog in Westeros of a "stepparent" it's nonsensical to judge Cat by that model. I want to be clear though that I'm not subscribing to some cultural relativism, where immoral acts are excusable because "it was done back then." But if we were to judge Cat's behavior on this model, wouldn't the fact that by putting up a wall of secrecy on the subject of Jon, Ned is preempting her from being a stepmother in a more modern sense (the usurpation of parental duties and rights thing) regardless of whether she wanted to or not, contradict this modern analog? Cat doesn't have the obligations and expectations that being a stepmother implies, which questions the validity that she was unwelcoming and negligent towards Jon in a subjective context.

Secondly, I fully agree with your view that Cat's (like every other woman in Westeros) marital "authority" is circumscribed and subordinate to her husband's. We can assert that this as objectively unfair/wrong, that Westerosi women should have greater authority within marriage. But as you've said, Cat's ultimate lack of authority in her marriage isn't something she can realistically overcome in the context/constraints of the series. That said, my intent was to demonstrate why Cat's characteristic rationality and compassion is suspended irt to Jon, and how this divergence in her character can be made more reasonable (and perhaps forgivable) when considering:

1) the structure of the Stark household

2) the fact that Ned completely shuts down Cat on the subject of Jon, and therefore excludes her from being any sort of parental figure (which from her own thoughts, she had considered but could not be)

3) the fact that the entire construction of their marriage and Cat's rights, such as the option to divorce Ned, are different from a modern analog

It's the fact that Ned acknowledges that such an arrangement would create a severely unfunctional and unhealthy situation the determining reason, IMO, that Catelyn's refusal here plays a decisive role.

Oh yes, and it highlights the unavoidable tragedy of Ned taking Jon in and raising him as his own. The decision to send Jon to the Wall in order to avoid a toxic situation at home was something he should have done for Cat's sake in the first place, but unfortunately his seemingly cruel indifference to Cat's needs was the de facto premise of honoring his promise to his dying sister.

[BastardlyRock]

In this case it's way more likely that people will talk about what a doormat she was and consider this quite strange behavior since it goes against the societal norms.

Of course King Bob the doofus wouldn't have noticed anything weird, but the likes of Varys may have gotten suspicious.

Hmm, I hadn't considered that possibility... of course it would be very Dornish of her, I agree it's not at all a Tully way of behaving.

I fully understand Cat's reasoning for feeling upset, and the situation Ned put her in as not being conducive to healing (as I expressed in my analysis) but I don't think it's written down anywhere that you have to be cool and standoffish towards your spouse's bastards (which is far too similar a character trait shared by Cersei, of course in her case taken to the extreme). In that way I believe it was GRRM's intention to create a reason for Jon to never feel 100% included in Winterfell, further developing his character, while still maintaining sound cause and background from Cat's POV for why she may act that way. :dunno: Like I've said, I like Cat, but there are some things I still can't fully wrap my head around... but I'll try not to get too far ahead here... ;)

[David Selig]

Hmm, I hadn't considered that possibility... of course it would be very Dornish of her

Why? Nobody in Dorne does this (as far as we know). Ellaria only met Oberyn after the older Sand Snakes were already born.

but I don't think it's written down anywhere that you have to be cool and standoffish towards your spouse's bastards

Well, that's how all noblewomen put in this situation behave in the series (Cat being the least extreme case by far), so that's a pretty big hint. And it makes sense given the social system.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Good points! I have a couple quick nitpicks... are you saying that had Cat treated Jon warmly then the entire deception would have come crumbling down? I'm not arguing for Ned to have shared the truth with Cat, but simply wondering how suspicious it would have been if Cat hadn't distanced Jon. I'm sure there are instances (even in Westeros) of treating bastards like family. Picture for a second the other scenario, one wherein Cat was warm and welcoming of Jon, and everyone talked about what a caring and gracious woman Cat was because she invested in her husband's bastard the same love as she did her own children. That being said, I do agree that her icy treatment of Jon helped to further cement the farce, but by no means do I think the opposite would have been a breaking point.

The only other thing is in regards to Robert, who I would agree has a hatred for Targs (though maybe not an irrational one) but a hatred that very much stems from a (possibly irrational) fear of Targs/Targ children. The same threat that Robert sees in Targ children to the IT Cat sees in Jon to her own children's claim. The only difference being Cat doesn't try to have Jon murdered...

On the first point, I'll agree with David Selig above. It would certainly seem suspicious, even in the case it was all authentic.

More than that, I believe it would take more than a saint to overcome everything and love the fruit of her husband's infidelity. I mean, it's a very common (though irrational and unfair) human reaction to dislike the new love interest of their exes... I expect that many of us have witnessed an akward situation when the "ex" and the "new" happen to co-exist in the same place like school, work and the like. Those feelings go away with time but Cat -I can't stress this enough- was not given a closure. Anyway, the point is that it's common human behavior, it doesn't make all those people morally inferior.

Trying to put myself in Catelyn's shoes, I think I might try to force myself to behave because that's what morality dictates, Jon being a child and as such completely innocent, but the negative emotions would still be there undermining the whole effort. But maybe I'm not a very good person so... :dunno: :)

Anyways, I believe that negative emotions do not have to be explicitely and intendedly expressed; a keen observer and overly sensitive person (Jon is depicted like that, as GinesthoiOfIce noticed) will get it through the body language. The tension could not be avoided, IMO.

On the Catelyn - Robert comparison

I hadn't thought of this before. Good catch, it's an interesting one to ponder... The source of their feelings are of a generally common nature for both, but I think that this fact really hightlights the differences between the characters even more. For one, icy treatment is far, far away from death wish. But not only that; Robert let his emotions to undermine his future as a husband and as a king while Catelyn, despite her feelings, moved on to have this relationship with her husband and a loving family (of course, Ned being Ned and Cersei being Cersei do play an important part but still).

---------

@UVA, we are in agreement. Personally, I need to place things in context in order to make an assessment (moral or other). By my way of thinking it is impossible to see Catelyn in the role of a modern stepparent, but I do get your point now. It's sadly true that Catelyn is judged according to the modern expectations without taking into account that she is not given the modern prerequisites in the first place.

[UVA]

Hmm, I hadn't considered that possibility... of course it would be very Dornish of her, I agree it's not at all a Tully way of behaving.

I fully understand Cat's reasoning for feeling upset, and the situation Ned put her in as not being conducive to healing (as I expressed in my analysis) but I don't think it's written down anywhere that you have to be cool and standoffish towards your spouse's bastards (which is far too similar a character trait shared by Cersei, of course in her case taken to the extreme).

This seems tainted with expectations of gender roles and a bit too close to the supposition that all women must be maternal or accept all children. That said, BearQueen made a similar criticism to yours -- that there is a spectrum of treatment ranging from maternal to abusive -- and that Cat should have at the very least accepted Jon and treated him fairly. But I think Cat tried her best, but because she couldn't (out of love perhaps) rectify her anger and shame caused by Ned, and instead transferred all this on to Jon, she ultimately failed in this situation.

[BearQueen87]

Oh yes, and it highlights the unavoidable tragedy of Ned taking Jon in and raising him as his own. The decision to send Jon to the Wall in order to avoid a toxic situation at home was something he should have done for Cat's sake in the first place, but unfortunately his seemingly cruel indifference to Cat's needs was the de facto premise of honoring his promise to his dying sister.

The issue I'm having with this is that we do not--as yet--know the full extent of the promises made to Lyanna from Ned. Most people who follow RLJ believe it was "keep the baby safe" and I think that most definitely played into it. But there could be another promise that has yet to be revealed (and in text the only promise that we know for sure is that Lyanna wanted to be brought home to Winterfell). This promise that may surface later could be, "love Baby Jon as if he were your own." And if that's the case, and I don't think it's too far outside the realm of possibility, then Ned is actively thinking of Jon as his own child and I don't know that he would send any child of his to the Wall if that child did not want to go. Jon, of course, wants to go and Ned shouldn't stand in his way, but Jon's desire to go to the Wall is something he's been considering for awhile but not all along. We don't know when Jon got it into his head to seriously consider the Wall to find his honor. But the idea that Ned should have sent Jon to the Wall in the first place, whether Jon wanted to go or not, is problematic for me. Would Ned do the same for Robb? Or Bran? Or Rickon?

I also think it's worth remembering that when Ned made these promises he and Cat barely knew each other, they had just gotten married and weren't even supposed to be married in the first place. Ned stayed honorable to Cat and his duty as her husband. But should he have taken Cat into consideration before making promises to Lyanna? I find it hard to say yes. Here's his sister, dying in a bed of blood, with fear in her eyes, and Ned's just leaned that she was not abducted and raped a thousand times by the crown prince, but was in fact in love with said prince and had a son by him. A son that is now in an incredible amount of danger from Ned's closest friend. And once Ned has made these promises to Lyanna--keep Jon safe, love him as if he were your own child--he finds it hard to go back on them because that's the kind of man Ned is.

ETA: quick question for the people running this re-read. It sounds like we're going to be doing chapters that aren't Cat POV's but have Cat playing a role in them (Arya, Bran, maybe a Ned chapter?). Is there any chance of getting some sort of list of which chapters posted? If not, that's cool. I was just wondering which ones we'll be covering. Cheers!

[ShadowCat Rivers]

@BearQueen

You're right in that we don't know. But shouldn't we consider that Catelyn knows even less? Going by what Catelyn knows, Ned loves Jon not just as if he were his own - he loves him because he is his own. But then, parents do send their own children away as wards (and they don't love them any less...). I dare say that going away from home -as a page and then a squire- is an almost required step in a boy's growing up.

Maybe if Jon was trully his, Ned would have sent him to be forstered, maybe somewhere near so there could be often visits but not the everyday friction. The tragedy is that Ned needs to keep him close because he is not really his, but he can't explain that to his wife... I can't blame Ned for this (I can't blame no one in fact) and I really understand his position but surely I can't expect Catelyn to just "get over it".

edit: formatting

[BearQueen87]

@BearQueen

You're right in that we don't know. But shouldn't we consider that Catelyn knows even less? Going by what Catelyn knows, Ned loves Jon not just as if he were his own - he loves him because he is his own. But then, parents do send their own children away as wards (and they don't love them any less...). I dare say that going away from home -as a page and then a squire- is an almost required step in a boy's growing up.

Maybe if Jon was trully his, Ned would have sent him to be forstered, maybe somewhere near so there could be often visits but not the everyday friction. The tragedy is that Ned needs to keep him close because he is not his, but he can't explain that to his wife... I can't blame Ned for this (I can't blame no one in fact) and I really understand his position but surely I can't expect Catelyn to just "get over it".

Absolutely we should consider it. I said this a few pages back but Cat doens't know anything and through no fault of her own, and being kept in the dark, forced to pick up pieces through servant gossip, must really and truly suck. But the issue with Ned not sending Jon away (as a ward, squire, ect) is that he simply can't. Jon isn't actually just another bastard, he's a Targaryen and if anyone figures that out, then Jon is dead and Ned's promises to Lyanna are all broken.

I think both Ned and Cat are in an absolutely impossible situation. Ned can't break the promises he's made to Lyanna and I think they were promises that Ned absolutely had to make, but that means hurting Cat. Cat is hurt, not by Ned's infidelity, but bringing Jon home and calling him son right along with Robb, Bran and Rickon, and she has a right to be hurt by those actions but she puts all that hurt on Jon, not Ned because it turns out (perhaps despite all odds) that Cat and Ned truly love each other.

UVA called it a "toxic home situation" but one of the things I keep reading so far in this thread is that the "hatred" (I'm beginning to hate this word...need to figure out a different way to describe it...) Cat has towards Jon is greatly exaggerated by some readers. So which is it? Is it a toxic home situation where Ned should have taken steps to mitigate the toxicity for Cat's sake, or is the Cat-Jon dynamic not as bad as some people make it out to be?

[BastardlyRock]

This seems tainted with expectations of gender roles and a bit too close to the supposition that all women must be maternal or accept all children.

My point has much less to do with gender roles and more to do with human decency. It is not, imho, decent to treat a child cooly because of something they had no control over. I can promise you if the roles were reversed I would expect the father to at least not be cold to the child, as was the case with Cat. As you pointed out, it was a case of misguided anger and frustration. I agree with David Selig's point about looking like a doormat to a degree, but I don't think the only viable solution to not looking like a doormat was to treat the child with loathing.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I think both Ned and Cat are in an absolutely impossible situation. Ned can't break the promises he's made to Lyanna and I think they were promises that Ned absolutely had to make, but that means hurting Cat. Cat is hurt, not by Ned's infidelity, but bringing Jon home and calling him son right along with Robb, Bran and Rickon, and she has a right to be hurt by those actions but she puts all that hurt on Jon, not Ned because it turns out (perhaps despite all odds) that Cat and Ned truly love each other.

Agreed.

UVA called it a "toxic home situation" but one of the things I keep reading so far in this thread is that the "hatred" (I'm beginning to hate this word...need to figure out a different way to describe it...) Cat has towards Jon is greatly exaggerated by some readers. So which is it? Is it a toxic home situation where Ned should have taken steps to mitigate the toxicity for Cat's sake, or is the Cat-Jon dynamic not as bad as some people make it out to be?

Maybe antipathy is the right word? I 'm not sure what's the full extent of its connotations in english...

About the toxicity issue, the best more "modern" analogy I can come up with is cliché in-law relationships. One might just moderatedly dislike the mother in law; if each lives in their own place, a functional relationship can be feasible, but force them to live together and home soon becomes a toxic environment.

That said, I think that the presence of Ned and all the children would help to "dilute the solution" so to say, while staying alone with only Jon and Robb (Rickon is too young to make a difference) and half the household away would increase the density considerably.

[BastardlyRock]

Agreed.

Maybe antipathy is the right word? I 'm not sure what's the full extent of its connotations in english..

Antipathy is good, though I would argue for animosity.

[UVA]

[snip]

I'm probably reiterating the same things as you are. I mentioned up thread that I think Ned's decision to not divulge the truth about Jon's origins and Lyanna's promise was both prudent and merciful to Cat for many reasons, not the least of which was not making her complicit in his treason. I also said that I don’t blame Ned for creating this home situation and I accept it as a given due to the fact that he’s protecting innocents (Cat and Jon) through this deceit. If anything, Ned is being a "good person" while simultaneously being an "unfair husband."

I also don't think it would've been prudent for Ned to send Jon away to foster somewhere for this makes Jon more susceptible to rumors and questions about his origins. But I'm less convinced that Ned did this because part of the contents of the promise he made to Lyanna was to "love Jon as his own". Rather, wanting to keep Jon close and raise him as own was primarily necessitated out of the political gravity of Jon's true identity. The fatherly love most likely developed over time. Ned's love and devotion to his sister here seems obvious considering how much he had to sacrifice personally and had to inflict suffering on those he loved the most.

UVA called it a "toxic home situation" but one of the things I keep reading so far in this thread is that the "hatred" (I'm beginning to hate this word...need to figure out a different way to describe it...) Cat has towards Jon is greatly exaggerated by some readers. So which is it? Is it a toxic home situation where Ned should have taken steps to mitigate the toxicity for Cat's sake, or is the Cat-Jon dynamic not as bad as some people make it out to be?

I don't know if this is an either/or situation. The text suggests that on a day-to-day basis Cat gave Jon chilly stares, was distant and vocal about the social distinctions between Jon and her children. Was perhaps irrationally concerned about the threat to her children's inheritance that Jon presented. But the question is, do these things constitute abuse or cruelty -- things that are often lobbed at Cat? The experience makes Jon resentful and suffer from an identity crisis, but both Cat and Ned perpetuate this. Ultimately Cat's actions are exaggerated in terms of damage. Of all of Jon's ongoing issues he seems most traumatized by the fact that he doesn't know who his mother is. Honestly. I think that haunts him more than not feeling accepted by Cat.

Maybe if Jon was trully his, Ned would have sent him to be forstered, maybe somewhere near so there could be often visits but not the everyday friction. The tragedy is that Ned needs to keep him close because he is not really his, but he can't explain that to his wife... I can't blame Ned for this (I can't blame no one in fact) and I really understand his position but surely I can't expect Catelyn to just "get over it".

Tangentially speaking, I've always wondered why Ned didn't get a mother-figure/nanny for Jon. I guess Jon's wet nurse (Wylla?) and later Old Nan, somewhat fulfilled this role but perhaps there could've been some kind of in-house mother-figure, who would be a buffer between Jon and Cat.

edited for typos

[BearQueen87]

I don't know if this is an either/or situation. The text suggests that on a day-to-day basis Cat gave Jon chilly stares, was distant and vocal about the social distinctions between Jon and her children. Was perhaps irrationally concerned about the threat to her children's inheritance that Jon presented. But the question is, do these things constitute abuse or cruelty -- things that are often lobbed at Cat? The experience makes Jon resentful and suffer from an identity crisis, but both Cat and Ned perpetuate this. Ultimately Cat's actions are exaggerated in terms of damage. Of all of Jon's ongoing issues he seems most traumatized by the fact that he doesn't know who his mother is. Honestly. I think that haunts him more than not feeling accepted by Cat.

To the first bolded: I agree that those words aren't correct when speaking about Cat-Jon. Two-ish pages back or so, I said that cruelty was the wrong word for this situation. I think we're going with antipathy? So general dislike or aversion. Cat's averse to Jon and I've always wondered how much Cat tried to avoid Jon over the years. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak.

To the second bolded: I agree with you. I consider Jon to be a very self-aware young guy ("I'm no Stark, Father" in Bran's first POV). I believe Jon knows the issues he caused for Cat and in part for feels bad for it. I don't want to jump ahead, though I don't know if we're reading this chapter or not, but in Jon II he's afraid to go say goodbye to Bran because she doesn't want to upset Cat further but ultimately decides that he owes it to himself to say goodbye to his little brother. But it shows that he understands Cat's feelings toward him and more to the point, almost respects it.

[UVA]

My point has much less to do with gender roles and more to do with human decency. It is not, imho, decent to treat a child cooly because of something they had no control over. I can promise you if the roles were reversed I would expect the father to at least not be cold to the child, as was the case with Cat. As you pointed out, it was a case of misguided anger and frustration. I agree with David Selig's point about looking like a doormat to a degree, but I don't think the only viable solution to not looking like a doormat was to treat the child with loathing.

Ok, fair enough. I agree with you that she should have, at the very least, been more accepting of Jon. He's just a child! This is a personal failing, but one that she seems very aware of :

It was the one thing she could never forgive him. She had come to love her husband with all her heart, but she had never found it in her to love Jon. She might have overlooked a dozen bastards for Ned’s sake, so long as they were out of sight. Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him. Somehow that made it worse.

I've tried to explain throughout my posts in this thread, most recently here, that given the context of the situation, she was unable to be rational and compassionate like she was in general. To sum up my position about the Cat-Jon thing:

• Cat was objectively wrong to transfer her feelings from Ned to Jon. This is a failing on Cat’s part, but arguably forgivable in context.
• Distance, icy stares, and generally treating Jon as a non-entity is objectively a personal failing of Cat's but perhaps understandable given the context. (I'm not addressing the "It should have been you" comment yet)
• Ned also enforced the social distinctions surrounding bastardy, but both Jon and the reader tend to place blame for this exclusively on Cat.
• Given the structure of the Winterfell household, Ned’s assumption of full parental duties, and the lack of other modern analogues like divorce, Cat does not fill the role of “stepmother,” and as such, there is no imperative for her to treat Jon as a son.

I:

[SeanF]

I don't know that Cat would treat Jon more motherly, but there is a lot in between treating someone like your child and treating them with cold contempt. I don't treat other people's children like they were my own, but I also don't scorn them and try to send them from my side. There's a pretty big in-between. Simple acceptance for a start.

Now Cat, to be more positive here for a second, doesn't insist that Jon work in the stables or sleep outdoors or go nowhere near her children. Jon is raised in the castle, taught to use a sword, has good relationships with Robb, Arya and Bran. He is fed and clothed and educated. So she does get a lot of credit for that.

I think Cat would have had to be a remarkably generous person to act as you suggest. A modern wife would walk out of such a situation. A medieval noblewoman would feel deeply shamed by it.

[BastardlyRock]

Ok, fair enough. I agree with you that she should have, at the very least, been more accepting of Jon. He's just a child! This is a personal failing, but one that she seems very aware of :

I've tried to explain throughout my posts in this thread, most recently here, that given the context of the situation, she was unable to be rational and compassionate like she was in general. To sum up my position about the Cat-Jon thing:

• Cat was objectively wrong to transfer her feelings from Ned to Jon. This is a failing on Cats part, but arguably forgivable in context.
• Distance, icy stares, and generally treating Jon as a non-entity is objectively a personal failing of Cat's but perhaps understandable given the context. (I'm not addressing the "It should have been you" comment yet)
• Ned also enforced the social distinctions surrounding bastardy, but both Jon and the reader tend to place blame for this exclusively on Cat.
• Given the structure of the Winterfell household, Neds assumption of full parental duties, and the lack of other modern analogues like divorce, Cat does not fill the role of stepmother, and as such, there is no imperative for her to treat Jon as a son.

I:

I'm a big fan of all of your points :D I especially agree that the situation she found herself in made it horribly unrealistic to be rational.

[BearQueen87]

• Ned also enforced the social distinctions surrounding bastardy, but both Jon and the reader tend to place blame for this exclusively on Cat.

I agree pretty much with all your other bullet points. But I'm not quite sure about this one. Yes, Jon goes by Snow and not Stark and is not in line for WF, but Cat remarks in this chapter that Ned's treatment of his bastard is quite odd.

He[Ned] was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child's needs. He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see.

We know that there are other Northmen with bastards, but it's the idea that because he's a STARK he brought the baby home. Things is, though, there is an SSM in which GRRM says that Brandon left "no legitimate children before he died" which would indicate, IMO, that he did have at least one bastard. We know Brandon had per-marital sex but yet that/those bastard(s) were never brought home to WF. This is something that Ned does which makes him different from other Northern men. Roose did not bring Ramsey to the Dreadfort until after Domeric died, preferring to keep Ramsey with his mother. Ned, on the other hand, raises Jon alongside his own children, does not send him out to be fostered or squired (we know the reasons why).

So the way Ned treated "his" bastard is different; he's breaking socal norms.