Why do people hate Sansa?

[spauldo17]

16 hours ago, Pikachu101 said:

Sexism, you see it in everything whether it's a fantasy novel or real life; women are always attacked for the same thing men would be either rewarded for or defended. 

This is asinine.  I don't know if you're a male or female but it's this mentality that drives me bananas in today's society.  As soon as anybody says anything negative there are people who immediately cry sexism.  Know what?  We can dislike a female for her negative qualities and not be sexist.  Screaming sexism is such a lazy argument and invalidates the entire discussion. It's a typical millennial attitude  of, "well this is getting tough and confrontational, so I'm just going to blame it on (fill in the blank) so I look like a victim."

And in fact, what really baffles me about the position you've decided to take is how incredibly short sighted it is.  Do you not realize that when you label everything sexism, you're diluting your own cause?  Talking about sexism is meant to draw attention to an injustice, but the more you throw around the label needlessly the more you, yourself, belittle and degrade the agenda. 

Why do I dislike Sansa?  Same reasons most do.  She's superficial, aloof, and useless.  There's not another character in the entire series that allows themselves to be manipulated and used like she does.  She offers no real plot advancement in her story arc, just bouncing from one manipulator to the next.  She spends so much time feeling sorry for herself that she never stops to consider how she may change her situation. 

Her siblings are all major role players, who have been through similarly difficult situations and decided to take charge of their own fate.  She's the only one that goes emotionally fetal.

Don't blame readers for being sexist just because you can't formulate a legitimate opinion on a discussion.

[Lion of the West]

6 minutes ago, spauldo17 said:

This is asinine.  I don't know if you're a male or female but it's this mentality that drives me bananas in today's society.  As soon as anybody says anything negative there are people who immediately cry sexism.  Know what?  We can dislike a female for her negative qualities and not be sexist.  Screaming sexism is such a lazy argument and invalidates the entire discussion. It's a typical millennial attitude  of, "well this is getting tough and confrontational, so I'm just going to blame it on (fill in the blank) so I look like a victim."

Why do I dislike Sansa?  Same reasons most do.  She's superficial, aloof, and useless.  There's not another character in the entire series that allows themselves to be manipulated and used like she does.  She offers no real plot advancement in her story arc, just bouncing from one manipulator to the next.  She spends so much time feeling sorry for herself that she never stops to consider how she may change her situation. 

Her siblings are all major role players, who have been through similarly difficult situations and decided to take charge of their own fate.  She's the only one that goes emotionally fetal.

Don't blame readers for being sexist just because you can't formulate a legitimate opinion on a discussion.

Not true at all.

Eddard and Robert are both played like fiddles while Renly is ever a Tyrell doll dancing with Highgarden's strings, Melisandra has her claws into both Selyse and Stannis. And we don't know how far the potential con with JonCon and Faegon is going on either. There are far more pawns than players in this book and Sansa is certainly not the only one getting manipulated at length.

[spauldo17]

11 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not true at all.

Eddard and Robert are both played like fiddles while Renly is ever a Tyrell doll dancing with Highgarden's strings, Melisandra has her claws into both Selyse and Stannis. And we don't know how far the potential con with JonCon and Faegon is going on either. There are far more pawns than players in this book and Sansa is certainly not the only one getting manipulated at length.

This is incorrect.  Though the characters you listed do have times wherein they've been manipulated, none of them is the sole product of manipulation.  In my post, if you read it, I say that I dislike Sansa because all she ever does is get manipulated. She's constantly being used by other people with no moves of her own.  The people you listed don't fit that category and I'll explain why.

Eddard - was the Lord of Winterfell, became hand of the king, and worked to uncover the conspiracy behind the Lannister children's lineage.  He made his move and the Lannisters countered it and killed him.  While he was being an active player.

Robert - Freaking won a war.  How did you even mention Robert in this post?  He was a great warrior who took over a kingdom.  Afterwards he became fat and happy and did a lot of nothing and guess what?  People dislike him for it which flies in the face of what I was responding to - the notion that we only dislike Sansa b/c she's a female.

Renly - Is an aspiring king as he made a play for the Iron throne. He made his move and was bested by Stannis (also on your list)

Stannis - Another idiotic inclusion on this list.  Served as a war general for Robert's Rebellion, declared himself king, and won many battles.  A strategic mastermind who used the services of Melisandre to overcome a lot.  Was Melisandre also using him?  I'd argue no, she wasn't using him, she thought he was Azor Ahai. 

 

Your list makes very little sense.  My point was that Sansa does nothing of her own volition, she just tries to look pretty and survive as she's used constantly by other people.  The people you mentioned were all major players who, through more shrewd moves by other people, were beat.

[Lion of the West]

12 minutes ago, spauldo17 said:

This is incorrect.  Though the characters you listed do have times wherein they've been manipulated, none of them is the sole product of manipulation.  In my post, if you read it, I say that I dislike Sansa because all she ever does is get manipulated. She's constantly being used by other people with no moves of her own.  The people you listed don't fit that category and I'll explain why.

Eddard - was the Lord of Winterfell, became hand of the king, and worked to uncover the conspiracy behind the Lannister children's lineage.  He made his move and the Lannisters countered it and killed him.  While he was being an active player.

Robert - Freaking won a war.  How did you even mention Robert in this post?  He was a great warrior who took over a kingdom.  Afterwards he became fat and happy and did a lot of nothing and guess what?  People dislike him for it which flies in the face of what I was responding to - the notion that we only dislike Sansa b/c she's a female.

Renly - Is an aspiring king as he made a play for the Iron throne. He made his move and was bested by Stannis (also on your list)

Stannis - Another idiotic inclusion on this list.  Served as a war general for Robert's Rebellion, declared himself king, and won many battles.  A strategic mastermind who used the services of Melisandre to overcome a lot.  Was Melisandre also using him?  I'd argue no, she wasn't using him, she thought he was Azor Ahai. 

 

Your list makes very little sense.  My point was that Sansa does nothing of her own volition, she just tries to look pretty and survive as she's used constantly by other people.  The people you mentioned were all major players who, through more shrewd moves by other people, were beat.

If you read my post you'll notice that I responded to the part that no one was manipulated or allowed themselves to be used in the same regard as Sansa. And you should also notice another trend. What other characters are in their enemies hands the same way that Sansa is? I can't recall a single one.

But to start with Eddard he places his trust in Varys, Littlefinger and Robert, the best of whom is Robert who is a faithless friend to Eddard and lets Eddard down every chance he gets. Eddard starts his investigation due to being bluffed into it by Littlefinger and Lysa, then relies on Robert who lets him down time and time again before finally Eddard puts his life in Littlefinger's hands and Littlefinger delivers Eddard to the Lannisters. Who did Eddard put his trust in after leaving Winterfell who wasn't working against Eddard or let Eddard down? Even Varys failed to ensure that Joffrey would play his part after making his arrangement with Eddard in the dungeons.

To say it shortly. Robert hugs Varys (a Targaryen loyalist) and Littlefinger (working to bring ruin to the realm) to his chest and brings them to his small council. Not to mention keeping Pycellce (a Lannister loyalist) as well as alienating his one brother that would be driven by loyalty and duty in favor of a grasping brother. Robert is played like few others and allows people who have no loyalty to him to stay at court and hold power. Its perfectly understandable in a way that he does this as there's some reason in each case but don't try to tell me that Robert isn't getting played. Not to mention that Cersei totally manipulates him in regards to "his" children.

Renly is a Tyrell puppet and a extension of Highgarden's interests. Its clear that the Tyrells don't give a crap about Renly. So Renly is just a tool used by the Tyrells to move into the Red Keep. After they lost Renly, they found themselves another tool in the shape of Joffrey and then Tommen and on it went.

Stannis is certainly more willful than the others but at the end of the day he is in the clutches of Melisandre. Now Melisandre is cool character, no questiion about it, but Stannis really goes deep into her after the Blackwater. But I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong in regards to Stannis.

[zandru]

1 hour ago, spauldo17 said:

My point was that Sansa does nothing of her own volition, she just tries to look pretty and survive as she's used constantly by other people. 

You've made some great arguments, and I agree. Sansa might not look quite so bad but that there are so many others, both female and male, who are so much better. In a cast of heroes, she's ... ordinary. I've often seen her defenders as "Well, what would YOU do?".But that just clinches the notion that Sansa is purely ordinary, average, nothing special but for her (fleeting) good looks and breeding.

While Ned investigated, tried to run Robert's kingdom, take care of his wayward children, take action, Sansa just sits in her room vacantly staring at clouds. Even Doran Martell, who isn't up to much besides sitting, is constantly thinking and planning. Sure, Ned and the others were sometimes misled and used, sometimes placed their faith in the wrong person. But it wasn't because they themselves did or attempted nothing.

What COULD Sansa have done? She could have tried to befriend her servants, or even learn their names. She told herself well, they're spying for Cersei, so I have no use for them. Sansa might have picked up more information that way, and gained sympathy; after all, these were the women who got to see, up close and personal, Sansa's wounds and bruises. Had she bothered to talk to them, they might have been on her side, at least to some extent.

Sansa's wounds and bruises? I mentioned before that, like Cersei, she should have worn them proudly and defiantly like badges of honor, rather than making sure all damage was concealed by clothing and makeup. No, "the whole court" didn't see her beatings, just a relative handful. But, by covering up the damage, even those witnessing the attacks would be inclined to think That looked really terrible, but I don't see any sign of it now, so maybe it was no big deal. Any people that the witnesses had told about it would see Sansa's lack of injuries and think Oh sure, he "beat" her - but where's the evidence? Displaying the injuries would be stark evidence (heh) of what Joffrey had had done. Even people who hadn't seen it would wonder how it happened. People would talk, and lots would sympathize with the little fiance.

Sansa also needed to stop groveling and making nice. Her first response was My father's a traitor! My whole family are traitors! But I   L O O O V E  my dearest Joffrey! I do! I do!! Sansa should know what a "hostage" is and their value, particularly after hearing Tyrion note repeatedly that if anything happened to her, the king's uncle (also father) was dead. There was really nothing to be gained by continuing to debase herself and her family. Was she still actually holding out with the idea that, whatever else happened, she would soon be The Queen? (Not while Cersei survived...) 

This brings me to Ned again. Some have pointed out that his confession to treason was exactly the same as Sansa's - to spare his life. Wrong. It was to spare SANSA'S life. She threw her family under the wain to save her own skin (having already forgotten that Arya ever existed). Ned gave up his honor and as far as he knew, his life - to save the rest of his family. Ned had earlier given up his honor and the love of his new bride Catelyn to save little "Jon Snow". Sansa gave up nothing of her own, not even her aspirations to sit beside the Iron Throne.

Child or not, I'm not going to love her for this. It's made worse by the fact that she keeps on doing it all the way through the books.

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

If you read my post you'll notice that I responded to the part that no one was manipulated or allowed themselves to be used in the same regard as Sansa. And you should also notice another trend. What other characters are in their enemies hands the same way that Sansa is? I can't recall a single one.

You mean the guy who was literally in fetters in the black cells with a gangrenous leg and drugged up who was killed by his enemires or the king who was surrounded by Lannisters who wanted him dead and dominated his life (admittedly through his own negligence) and then killed him?

Gee yeah can't think of a single one.

[zandru]

3 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You mean the guy who was literally in fetters in the black cells

Well, that was at the very end. Up until that point, Ned was constantly working, taking action, initiating actions by others, trying his best. He wasn't lounging in a nice warm bath with other folks washing and doing up his pretty hair, nor putting his pretty frilly clothing onto him for him. Heck, by then, nobody even emptied his chamber pots for him. Unlike certain of his indolent, helpless daughters.

Ned may have been duped, assumed the best from the worst people, made mistakes - but he was always DOING something. Never waiting for Prince Charming to ride up in his shining armor on a white horse, lift him into the saddle and carry him away to safety. Ned was working to save the kingdom, save his remaining family. Your attempt at paralleling Ned with Sansa (and NO, the two of them were not remotely alike in any way) is inaccurate.

[Universal Sword Donor]

9 minutes ago, zandru said:

Well, that was at the very end. Up until that point, Ned was constantly working, taking action, initiating actions by others, trying his best. He wasn't lounging in a nice warm bath with other folks washing and doing up his pretty hair, nor putting his pretty frilly clothing onto him for him. Heck, by then, nobody even emptied his chamber pots for him. Unlike certain of his indolent, helpless daughters.

Ned may have been duped, assumed the best from the worst people, made mistakes - but he was always DOING something. Never waiting for Prince Charming to ride up in his shining armor on a white horse, lift him into the saddle and carry him away to safety. Ned was working to save the kingdom, save his remaining family. Your attempt at paralleling Ned with Sansa (and NO, the two of them were not remotely alike in any way) is inaccurate.

He also had quite a bit more agency than Sansa. That said I was more undermining the point he was trying to make. Sansa's situation is hardly unique. Even Theon who's missing fingers, can't eat real food, and is more mentally broken than ADWD Cersei manages to do something useful, even though he knows it could result in his death.

[zandru]

1 minute ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

He also had quite a bit more agency than Sansa.

Ned did, but she never thought to use the agency that she did have. Sansa could have portrayed the proud Northern lady, savagely abused but unbroken, and still polite and mannerly to all, both high and low. Instead, she cowered and concealed and constantly proclaimed her love for her tormenters.

[Lion of the West]

52 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You mean the guy who was literally in fetters in the black cells with a gangrenous leg and drugged up who was killed by his enemires or the king who was surrounded by Lannisters who wanted him dead and dominated his life (admittedly through his own negligence) and then killed him?

Gee yeah can't think of a single one.

Yeah, that guy. He spends most of the time surrounded by his own people and when he finally comes into the hands of his enemies he gives in the first thing to Varys suggestion and publically announce that Joffrey is the rightful king and that he himself is a traitor.

By the standards put to Sansa I would expect people to call him a selfish coward and a sell out and say that he should proudly see his daughters killed and himself executed, and do so in stoic dignity because, the North remember!

A more reasonable parallel in Sansa's situation is Theon in Ramsay's hands.

[spauldo17]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

If you read my post you'll notice that I responded to the part that no one was manipulated or allowed themselves to be used in the same regard as Sansa. And you should also notice another trend. What other characters are in their enemies hands the same way that Sansa is? I can't recall a single one.

But to start with Eddard he places his trust in Varys, Littlefinger and Robert, the best of whom is Robert who is a faithless friend to Eddard and lets Eddard down every chance he gets. Eddard starts his investigation due to being bluffed into it by Littlefinger and Lysa, then relies on Robert who lets him down time and time again before finally Eddard puts his life in Littlefinger's hands and Littlefinger delivers Eddard to the Lannisters. Who did Eddard put his trust in after leaving Winterfell who wasn't working against Eddard or let Eddard down? Even Varys failed to ensure that Joffrey would play his part after making his arrangement with Eddard in the dungeons.

To say it shortly. Robert hugs Varys (a Targaryen loyalist) and Littlefinger (working to bring ruin to the realm) to his chest and brings them to his small council. Not to mention keeping Pycellce (a Lannister loyalist) as well as alienating his one brother that would be driven by loyalty and duty in favor of a grasping brother. Robert is played like few others and allows people who have no loyalty to him to stay at court and hold power. Its perfectly understandable in a way that he does this as there's some reason in each case but don't try to tell me that Robert isn't getting played. Not to mention that Cersei totally manipulates him in regards to "his" children.

Renly is a Tyrell puppet and a extension of Highgarden's interests. Its clear that the Tyrells don't give a crap about Renly. So Renly is just a tool used by the Tyrells to move into the Red Keep. After they lost Renly, they found themselves another tool in the shape of Joffrey and then Tommen and on it went.

Stannis is certainly more willful than the others but at the end of the day he is in the clutches of Melisandre. Now Melisandre is cool character, no questiion about it, but Stannis really goes deep into her after the Blackwater. But I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong in regards to Stannis.

Generally in a discussion such as this it's culturally accepted to respond to someone's actual point, or opinion.  Not just a fragment of their point.  My point is, in one sentence, "Nobody in the books allows themselves to be manipulated constantly and repetitively, wallow in their own self misery, without making any proactive actions like Sansa."  I've bolded an important point for you because you chose to respond to one sentence out of my post, which makes no sense.

Now moving on to the actual content of your post. I think you're confusing what Sansa is with simply being manipulated. Every character in the book has been manipulated at some point.  What I'm saying is that the other characters, specifically the ones you mention, all are players making positive action.  Every single one of them took their fate in their own hands, and strove to improve their situations.  Whereas Sansa simply muddles through her life, feeling sorry for herself rather than taking steps to change.

Again i'll reiterate with Ned Stark, the guy was a major player.  He uncovered the fact about the Lannister children being products of incest.  He also was hand to the king and one of the top warriors that helped overthrow a kingdom.  Those are big moves no matter how you slice it.  The fact that he was eventually outwitted doesn't mitigate his overall impact on the story.

On to Robert, as I've already said he was the leader of a rebellion and a renowned warrior.  Eventually sitting on his laurels got him killed by a scheming wife.  Same with Ned, this doesn't change the fact that he was an important and influential character, he was simply killed.

You can say Renly was simply a puppet but that remains to be proven.  The fact of the matter is that he made a play for the throne.  That's a big move no matter how you look at it.

Stannis is the same scenario.  He attempted to overthrow the Lannisters and become king.

To recap, you're simply confusing the point.  I never said these people never got manipulated, I said these people were all major players.  My biggest source of dislike for Sansa is that she doesn't do anything proactive.  She doesn't make any big moves or try and change anything.  Being manipulated doesn't make you an inert character, it simply means that you risked a lot.  One may argue that the bigger the player you are and the more you try to do the greater the risk is that someone will manipulate you.

[Angel Eyes]

49 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

 

A more reasonable parallel in Sansa's situation is Theon in Ramsay's hands.

Except that Sansa didn't lose her genitals to Joffrey, who doesn't do a scrap of physical abuse himself.

[spauldo17]

3 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Except that Sansa didn't lose her genitals to Joffrey, who doesn't do a scrap of physical abuse himself.

I'm sorry did you just say that Joffrey didn't "do a scrap of physical abuse" to Sansa?

[Angel Eyes]

2 minutes ago, spauldo17 said:

I'm sorry did you just say that Joffrey didn't "do a scrap of physical abuse" to Sansa?

I mean he used an intermediary like the Kingsguard, because "a King must never strike his lady", didn't use his own hands. And Please don't quote me wrong on this, like you just did.

[spauldo17]

2 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

I mean he used an intermediary like the Kingsguard, because "a King must never strike his lady", didn't use his own hands. And Please don't quote me wrong on this, like you just did.

Ok, I concede he didn't do any....himself. As you say.  But how in the world is that relevant?   If a president orders a nuke fired at a country who carries responsibility?  The president or the individual manning the button acting on his orders?   The mad king is always credited for burning people alive but I doubt (granted I have no proof) that he lit the fire himself.  This seems like a very strange distinction to point out.  An action carried out under your order becomes your action.

 

[Tygett Lannister]

20 hours ago, Pikachu101 said:

Sexism, you see it in everything whether it's a fantasy novel or real life; women are always attacked for the same thing men would be either rewarded for or defended. 

Kill me.

[Angel Eyes]

Well in legal terms, the person who orders the act is considered an accessory to a crime if not there, while an accomplice is present at the act. Take the Purple Wedding:

• Littlefinger is an accessory by masterminding Joffrey's death
• Dontos Hollard is an accomplice by smuggling the poison to the wedding
• Sansa is an unwitting accomplice by carrying the poison on her 
• Olenna Redwyne Tyrell is the principle by removing the poison from Sansa and poisoning Joffrey's wine

[spauldo17]

1 minute ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well in legal terms, the person who orders the act is considered an accessory to a crime if not there, while an accomplice is present at the act. Take the Purple Wedding:

• Littlefinger is an accessory by masterminding Joffrey's death
• Dontos Hollard is an accomplice by smuggling the poison to the wedding
• Sansa is an unwitting accomplice by carrying the poison on her 
• Olenna Redwyne Tyrell is the principle by removing the poison from Sansa and poisoning Joffrey's wine

Well considering this isn't a legal preceding, but a discussion on events that took place in a book, your comment seems super strange and not connected to anything of value.   Let me put it simpler:  Who cares if he didn't strike her himself?  What's the point you're trying to make?

 

You didn't actually connect your thought to anything, other than dissent for dissent's sake.

[Angel Eyes]

15 minutes ago, spauldo17 said:

Ok, I concede he didn't do any....himself. As you say.  But how in the world is that relevant?   If a president orders a nuke fired at a country who carries responsibility?  The president or the individual manning the button acting on his orders?   The mad king is always credited for burning people alive but I doubt (granted I have no proof) that he lit the fire himself.  This seems like a very strange distinction to point out.  An action carried out under your order becomes your action.

 

Or another one for Jon Arryn's death:

• Littlefinger is the accessory by ordering Jon Arryn's death
• Lysa is the principle (main perpetrator) by poisoning Jon
• Grand Maester Pycelle is an accomplice by withholding treatment

[Angel Eyes]

2 minutes ago, spauldo17 said:

Well considering this isn't a legal preceding, but a discussion on events that took place in a book, your comment seems super strange and not connected to anything of value.   Let me put it simpler:  Who cares if he didn't strike her himself?  What's the point you're trying to make?

 

You didn't actually connect your thought to anything, other than dissent for dissent's sake.

To show a distinction between Joffrey and Ramsay. You wouldn't see Joffrey charging in shirtless into battle.