Sexism in Catelyn bashing

[John Galt]

John Galt:

You are new here, and obviously have not yet got around to reading many threads. However most us have seen posts very like yours before, to the point of getting just a little tired of them. Hence the tone of exasperation. Please try to justify your arguments a little next time. For example for last substantive post was:

It is a public forum where people come and go. I don't see that as an excuse.

This is a common one. It belongs to the genre "making out that somehow the Red Wedding was all/mostly Catelyn's fault". It just ignores so many facts. Starting with: by ASoS Robb was his own man, Catelyn could only advise him, and he was perfectly capable of ignoring her advice if he chose to; and continuing with that Catelyn was more nervous about what the Freys might do than anyone else in Robb's entourage, for example she insisted that Frey feed them immediately.

Finally a reasonable response. Thank you. I was not implying that the Red Wedding was all Cat's fault. There were obviously a number of factors, not the least of which was the Freys ignoring custom and butchering guests in treachery. I was merely pointing out that many of Cat's decisions and many of the things she was arguing for led to disaster that played a part in the death of characters whom I actually enjoyed reading about. She was erratic and overly emotional, which I don't find enjoyable to read either. I am not squarely placing blame on Cat's shoulders.

[salinea]

Can we ban him already? He's not even a funny troll.

[Lady Blackfish]

Just to step in -- this thread is to look at overall patterns many have observed in criticisms of Catelyn over a period of time. It is not to say that every complaint against her can be attributed to sexism, it is not to indict anybody individually. I don't know how much more clear it can be made that what is being attempted is to look for systematic possibilities that may partially account for what is perceived as a disproportionate attitude toward the character. Nobody ever claimed that there weren't other valid reasons, and this thread, if I understand its origination correctly, is not an inquisition. I believe it is to look at textually based arguments and try to incorporate them into a working theory. If a specific assertion can have more than one explanation, i.e. besides sexism, by all means suggest them, that applies. However this thread is not to answer all complaints, nor demand that any one person explain themselves about their overall position.

Nor *sigh* to say that anyone has to like Cat. Pretend this is an English class, we're working on a joint thesis.

[DanteGabriel]

It is a public forum where people come and go. I don't see that as an excuse.

Don't you think it's a little lame to post a fairly generic and unsupported rant like yours in a thread that was already well-developed without actually reading the thread? Maybe you can't have known that you were posting, almost verbatim, the same opinion that a thousand mouth-breathing bashers already have, but you could have at least read the thread and seen some of the pro and cons.

Finally a reasonable response. Thank you.

Please come down off your cross -- or is it drop the globe you're bearing on your mighty shoulders? Redcandle tried to engage you on the merits of the Frey reconciliation point back on page 8, but you haven't, apparently, seen fit to respond to that.

[mormont]

I asked if those were your assertions. I didn't say they were except for the one in quotes. You did a poor job of explaining them (and have yet again dodged answering any direct questions), so I was fishing for an explanation. I can see how at least one of them could be contrued as a straw man, so I appologize for that.

Now, will you answer anything?

Well, whenever I have it has done little good. You asked me to define what I accept as reasonable criticism, for example: I referred you to examples, and in response you asked what it had to do with you.

As for 'dodging' things, you declared that the Sisyphus comment was an ad hominem attack, only to later pretend that it was another comment entirely that you were referring to. Who's dodging again?

Also, all of the quotes I made, and more, were straw men you set up, and the presence of a question mark doesn't disguise that.

Generally, your tone and conduct have been very rude. And if you want a reference to the board rule that breaks, I suggest you read the FAQ.

Sometimes discussions can get a little heated, but we ask everyone to show a certain politeness towards one another.

ETA - I might add that DG is also failing to respect that rule. There's no call for the 'mouth-breathing bashers' type of comments.

[TerraPrime]

Re: John Galt

I was merely pointing out that many of Cat's decisions and many of the things she was arguing for led to disaster that played a part in the death of characters whom I actually enjoyed reading about.

The same can be said of nearly every character. In particular, Ned and Robb are both just as guilty of making bone-headed decisions that led to the ruins of their family. Cat is not alone in this trait. Ned's naivety on honor caused him to first let Cercei go, and then to trust Littlefinger, and then again to trust Varys. Those are all irreparable blunders on the same scale as Cat's blunders. Robb gave up his campaign for love. He decided to dishonor his alliance with the Freys and directly precipitated the Red Wedding (textually, we know that Tywin was in communication with the Freys and he knew of the Westerling's plot, possibly that Tywin was the mastermind behind it all). Cat shared no blame in the Red Wedding. Her actions had been aimed to defuse the damage and she was the only one wary enough of the Freys to do anything at the Wedding. Your willingness to shift the blame from Robb to Cat despite clear textual support for otherwise renders your claim of "logic" more pathetic than laughable.

She was erratic and overly emotional, which I don't find enjoyable to read either. I am not squarely placing blame on Cat's shoulders.

If you don't fine her POV chapters enjoyable to read, that's your call. But she certainly isn't the only "overly" emotional character. Look at Tyrion. His infatuation with Shaye has led him down some rash decisions and ugly paths. Is that not "overly" emotional? We can also look at Samwell. He is also an emotional character. Do you dislike all characters that show strong emotions? Perhaps your favorite characters are Hodor and Gregor Clegane? Is it possible that you qualified your description as "overly" as a way to pussyfoot around the real reason behind your dislike of Cat? Given the preponderance of characters, POV or otherwise, with strong emotions on display, isn't it likely that your use of that trait as an explanation for your dislike of Cat is just a coward's way of saying you don't like that character because she's female?

[Bronn Stone]

I am confused.

Who would go to such an effort to make a trollish "John Alt" who can go into the Tairy threads and be a nuisance and squander that alt here?

On topic, Catelyn is both blunt and clear with Robb that the Frey alliance may well be irreparable; that his choice is either to eat bowls of shit and ask for second servings or to abandon the Riverlands altogether. And that even eating the shit may not suffice. Robb made that call - not his mother - and I think it would have been despicable and cowardly of him to have made any other.

Catelyn may have had too much faith in the rituals of guest right - but those are considered sacred in Westeros and Lord Walder's williingness to flaunt them is the sort of thing that will ensure that for decades or even centuries, men of honor will spit when they say the name Frey. Even if the Gods themselves lack the power to act (debateable), Frey has cursed his descendants for all time. No Frey can ever sit easy - and we see evidence of that already.

Robb erred at the Red Wedding, but the greater error was Frey's. He may not live to see it, but he threw away everything he'd built that day for a pathetic measure of revenge over a slight. Thing is, if he'd just refused the Young Wolf outright and stood to fight, he'd probably have earned the respect that he'd so long craved.

[DanteGabriel]

ETA - I might add that DG is also failing to respect that rule. There's no call for the 'mouth-breathing bashers' type of comments.

Fair enough, mormont. I apologize for the "mouth-breathing bashers" comment.

I definitely have problems keeping rudeness out of my tone, but I do like to think I at least direct my rudeness to people who have brought it on themselves... You know, like Catelyn brought everything on herself.

I do have to say, however, that I didn't mean the age question to be an insult. It was not a rhetorical question meant only to belittle. I truly was interested in learning JG's age, because of my half-assed theory.

[Lady Blackfish]

To try to move this in a slightly different direction, I'd like to volunteer this: I remember years ago a boarder (Shewoman? Sea King's Daughter? I unfortunately do not remember and I apologize) stated that she had read the series in her book club, which was not the typical fantasy demographic (which has been alluded to in this thread by the comments about teenage boys), and the overall opinion on Catelyn varied greatly from this board; that is to say, they quite liked her. I would offer that as a measure of empirical evidence, opinions though they may be. I *again* do not say this invalidates every complaint against the character.

[A wilding]

I was not implying that the Red Wedding was all Cat's fault. There were obviously a number of factors, not the least of which was the Freys ignoring custom and butchering guests in treachery.

Unfortunately you did come across as implying that. You stated implicitly that the decision to go to the Twins was Catelyn's. In fact it was Robb's decision entirely and Catelyn, as far as we can tell, had little if any input.

I was merely pointing out that many of Cat's decisions and many of the things she was arguing for led to disaster that played a part in the death of characters whom I actually enjoyed reading about. She was erratic and overly emotional, which I don't find enjoyable to read either.

Unfortunately your example of a case in which she made a bad decision or argued for something that led to disaster shows no such thing!

ETA: I see that I am only repeating what others said while I typed this. Such is life.

[L'Sana]

The same can be said of nearly every character. In particular, Ned and Robb are both just as guilty of making bone-headed decisions that led to the ruins of their family.

True enough. For those people who hate Catelyn because "her every decision turned to disaster," name a character on the Stark/Tully side whose every decision did not turn to disaster. All of the Stark plans ended in failure; they lost the war. In some cases, plans failed because they were genuinely bad, in other cases it was because of bad luck or someone else screwing up the works. But in any case, Ned, Robb, Edmure, even the Blackfish ultimately saw all of their plans fail.

[Piper]

Re: posts 130 through 147, which discussed the "It should have been you comment" as if it were the only thing Cat did to Jon, I tried to point out here another instance, one that, while it may not have been indicative of her actions vis-a-vis Jon throughout his life, and while certainly understandably from Cat's part, did even elicit Ned to call her cruel to Jon. Again, it's not like she threw Jon out the window to cover her high treason, but it wasn't a nice thing to do.

Re: John Galt

I think the problem arises from the fact thta this thread is not, despite the way the conversation drifts in and out, a conversation about whether or not Cat is a good character. It's about why some people think she isn't. It's about asking why Robb was far, far more responsible for the Red Wedding, yet Cat is far more hated. It's about asking why Ned was far, far more responsible for the downfall of his family in the War of the Five kings (if he either allied with Renly when offered, or didn't warn Cersei he was outing her secret to Robert, things would have been greatly different), yet Ned is generaly beloved and Cat seems to attract a lot of hate.

You are absolutely, in life and on these boards, entitled to your opinion. It's just that when posting on a thread about why Cat is hated beyond Robb and Ned and others, any response that doesn't really answer those above questions is perplexing, and the bulk of those responses (most of which you can't be blamed for) get's frustrating.

So I ask: do you hate Ned and Robb as much as Cat? If not, why not? This is a thread about motivation, not just opinion, and that's where things get tricky.

[John Galt]

Well, whenever I have it has done little good. You asked me to define what I accept as reasonable criticism, for example: I referred you to examples, and in response you asked what it had to do with you.

That was a definition of "reasonable criticism". Sorry, but that falls short and relatively subjective.

As for 'dodging' things, you declared that the Sisyphus comment was an ad hominem attack, only to later pretend that it was another comment entirely that you were referring to. Who's dodging again?

Mow who straw man's who? Amusing yet again. I actually said the sisyphus comment was needling, which it was. I then appologized for the misleading "ad hominem". I don't see how APPOLOGIZING for a mistake is dodging.

Also, all of the quotes I made, and more, were straw men you set up, and the presence of a question mark doesn't disguise that.

So if you position is unclear asking questions about what your position does and does not include is classified as straw man in your mind? You do know that is absurd, right?

Generally, your tone and conduct have been very rude. And if you want a reference to the board rule that breaks, I suggest you read the FAQ.

You mean this:

A. Sometimes discussions can get a little heated, but we ask everyone to show a certain politeness towards one another. If you can't argue without cursing or being insulting, don't argue, or you're going to be shunned, warned to back off, or have your posts deleted. Cursing on occasion is fine, but cursing for the sake of insulting people is a quick way to get posts removed. One-liners are not much tolerated (see below for more information). Spoilers (information from very recently published ASoIaF books/stories or unpublished material red at conventions)should be kept carefully hidden through the use of the spoiler code like this:

I posted my opinion. I did not post it in a rude manner or rude tone. I simply posted my opinion of a character in the books and glossed over a couple reasons. I was then attacked and these have been responses to attacks.

Sometimes discussions can get a little heated, but we ask everyone to show a certain politeness towards one another.

ETA - I might add that DG is also failing to respect that rule. There's no call for the 'mouth-breathing bashers' type of comments.

I don't see how I am bashing. I am asking for logical discourse and to be free from condescending remarks. Rather simple.

[Lady Blackfish]

It's certainly facinating to consider how much the setting affects people's veiws. If you'd like to start the thread on that one, I'll certainly check it out.

What I basically want to say is that the patriarchal setting may predispose a reader to judge Catelyn by the gender-biased standards of the society she is in, yet the authority for the setting ultimately derives from the fact that it is included in the narrative. Which is maybe a little annoyingly academic, but I think it's important because the very same narrative, I believe, also includes things that ultimately equips the reader to reject those standards, and if the failure to reject is disproportionate, there may be an underlying bias. This relates to the premise that Westeros, while male-dominated, is presented in the text as a patriarchal society with some deviation. It seems to me that the nature of the deviation has a correlation with how acceptable the female deviant is. As a side note, I credit GRRM for showing how by and large all humans, both male and female, are both products and deviants of societal norms in various ways to varying extents.

We are given a patriarchal framework within which females exist in various levels of discord with the norm. This isn't saying anything outrageous, it's just that there is a distribution about an average, -- aka, a realistic spread. I'd say that Catelyn's pattern of interactions with the rest of society with regard to gender balance is more explained than any other character's, both in how she does and doesn't deviate. She's a noblewoman, her role is to be married off into an advantageous alliance and to provide heirs, and we see that her strongest affections are for the man she marries, the children she bears him, and the father that made that match. She is very accepting of these roles and transactions, and doesn't seem to consider them a burden or grievance against her gender. Makes sense, she's a product of her society.

We also know that she was raised as her father's heir, we have textual evidence to support that he was quite inclusive of her as he carried out his various duties, we see that her husband is also inclusive of her in administrative capacities, to some degree, both in decision-making and execution of orders. It is largely in the administrative sense that she challenges male dominance. What is notable though is that while you get the sense that it is not "plan A", it is by no means 100% unheard of. The Northmen take orders from her and seem quite used to doing so. She is of course not their leader, but an acceptable temporary substitute. This lends to her seeing herself as a suitable leadership accessory, which pertains to her interactions with Robb. Moreover, she also accepts that this is temporary. She may err on the conservative side when she tries to ascertain how much Robb is capable of, but to assert that she is power-hungry and took over the decision-making (which I have seen) seems to me a willful exaggeration.

Anyway, I bring it up because it is an example of understanding her personality in context of her environment. We see that there is some variety among even the typical Westerosi noblewomen. I think it is important because other women's challenging of the patriarchy seem to go over much better with the audience, and it seems to me that they are more readily understood within context of their cultures. Asha is a thorough Ironborn, nevermind that she can be crass, Arya is a wildchild in mold of her quite popular and very Northern, it is often stressed, aunt Lyanna, etc. The difference many have pointed out before is that a lot of these women seem to do it in more badass hip cool Xena warrior princess ways. Yet if anything their characterization is based on a lot more romanticization (Lyanna, the lovely yet potentially kickass erstwhile embodiment of all that is womanly admirable, being the best example); barring the Wuthering Heights parallel with Littlefinger, in which I must point out that her part has been totally subverted, there is not much romanticization in anything to do with Cat's character. So if anything, we are given more actual realistic information with which to understand Catelyn's character than many female characters, and yet some people refuse.

All main characters at some point beg textually to be understood in context of their environment, and yet some people refuse with Cat, who happens to not really be echoed in any previous popular fantasy trope: the tomboy princess, the powerful sorceress, etc. I do not say that the mere refusal implies sexism. I do consider the possibility that the overall disproportionate trend may incorporate it, as there are noted ways in which she challenges the patriarchy, and there are noted differences in the ways she does compared to how other female characters do, aaaaaand *breathe* that these differences have to do with previously established fantasy tropes.

Additionally, the tropes themselves are built on many years of sexism within the genre, a state that can hardly be denied, though there have certainly been struggles to identify and move away from this bias. I would suggest that perhaps some are not *used* to considering her point of view because she is not an easily identified archetype. This would provide resistance to equal treatment. I have several times said things like "But you don't consider her perspective" to be answered by "No, and I don't want to." I would submit that a considerable part of the fantasy genre historically does not support deep consideration of maternal instincts, effects of grief, loss of war as vs its glories, etc. This segment isn't necessarily even the majority, but I believe it could be sizeable enough to make an impact.

Anyway this ended up being much more long winded and rambling than I intended. I had hoped to finish it by morning but the discussion is already moving along so I don't have time to go back and condense, apologies. Overall I think with Catelyn, GRRM calls the fantasy genre out on a lot of premises that uphold arguably sexist constraints, and in that way sexism is implicated. In addition, some (probably less than those primarily affected by the previous) practice a slightly more active sexism in which they recognize fallacies and then refuse to resolve them. In addition, some are just churls that bitch her out beyond reasonable comprehension. It must be noted that some of these can probably be accounted for by dispositions and predispositions other than sexism.

Though I'd argue most of the churls are probably sexist.

[Ran]

Ah....

What Lady Blackfish said?

That was very well articulated, LB.

John,

Have you had a chance to go through the previous pages of this thread? You'll find many prior iterations of thoughts quite similar to yours, and refutations of same.

[Piper]

Lady Blackfish,

:bow:

[John Galt]

I think the problem arises from the fact thta this thread is not, despite the way the conversation drifts in and out, a conversation about whether or not Cat is a good character. It's about why some people think she isn't. It's about asking why Robb was far, far more responsible for the Red Wedding, yet Cat is far more hated. It's about asking why Ned was far, far more responsible for the downfall of his family in the War of the Five kings (if he either allied with Renly when offered, or didn't warn Cersei he was outing her secret to Robert, things would have been greatly different), yet Ned is generaly beloved and Cat seems to attract a lot of hate.

Good post. Obviously I can't answer for everybody, so I will give my opinion about it discounting what we'll discuss about degrees of responsiblity. That argument is rather fruitless and impossible to really quantify in either case. I'll stick to why I actually like Rob and Ned, and dislike Cat. I am trying to sum up a rather complex interplay of emotions and plot into a couple paragraphs, so please ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions like other posters.

Cat really had no positive actions in the book. Ned was what I consider the classical fantasy good guy. He was what many of us were brought up to idolize... the courageous and just sheriff in the old west, the samurai warrior , the jedi knight, the unflappable war commander, etc. IMO, he was portrayed in a such a way that it was nearly impossible not to fall in love his character half way through the book. When he ultimately brought destruction to House Stark by tipping his hand to Cersei, you already loved the guy, so it was hard to fault him too much. He was just doing what he saw as the "honorable" thing.

Then you have Cat. Almost immediately in the story she is erratic and emotional. She urges Ned to be the Hand when he might otherwise have rejected it. That is merely something to pin on her in hindsight though. At the time, its not like you were wishing for he to shut her yap then and there. It is really the fact she came off so frantic and erratic for me. Some say she had good reason because of what had happenned to Bran, but she had a responsibility to not only her family, but of all the people who composed Winterfell/The North to keep a clear head and put the welfare and safety of them into her mind and to add weight to her decisions. I never had that grace period where I could fall in love with Cat the woman and who she is. Her actions put me ill at ease almost immediately and it never seemed to stop. That's not to say I wouldn't feel for any person, man or woman, put into that position, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the character.

Robb was but a boy thrust into a man's situation; a situation which he rose to meet. He was forced to grow up quickly and without the continued guidance of his father, and he did a rather remarkable job. He faltered where many young men falter... hormones. True, all of Winterfell depended on him and his wise actions too, but again at least I had a grace period to learn to like Robb the boy/man. Also, it's hard to hold a teenage boy fully accountable as a man would be in that same situation. I'm not saying he did no wrong.

In conclusion, I was allowed time to learn to like the characters of Ned and Robb for who they were as people before their stupid actions. Even in Ned's case, at least that action was done for his naive sense of honor and not some erratic or emotional decision. That is in stark (wank wank no pun intended) contrast to Cat.

Again, please ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions. I'm not going to type 18 pages of why I feel certain way that nobody will read. This is but a brief summary.

[SFDanny]

Though I'd argue most of the churls are probably sexist.

Lady Blackfish, I stand in awe of your well reasoned post, but your last sentence had me spitting up my morning coffee in delight. Thank you.

[Ran]

Folks, no more sniping at one another. This is the last warning.

[John Galt]

How exactly is the alliance supposed to be repaired any other way? The agreement reached in AGoT was that Robb would marry a Frey girl (and Arya a Frey boy, and Cat would take Frey wards) in exchange for being allowed to use the Freys's bridge to cross the river and the Freys would fight on his side. Robb broke this contract by marrying Jeyne Westerling.

The first thing that comes to mind is not wading in unprotected into the Frey's domain. Trying to determine if Walder Frey would be accepting of such a slight when Martin went through great pains to describe him as somebody who'd likely not be as opposed to be just like "Oh yeah! He accepted. Let's over into his castle with no protection and no contigency plans".

Edmure's wedding to a Frey was the only thing the Freys would accept. Walder Frey is prickly about his honor - which is why Catelyn and co. could not refuse to attend the wedding. Walder already had a grudge because Hoster Tully hadn't attended his wedding.

Edmure being much less of a catch than the King of the North... Again, they should have been suspicious of anyone; especially Walder Frey.

If you're going to hate Cat for the choices she made, then suggest alternatives. And if you can't think of any, then why do expect Catelyn to have thought of any?

Aren't the alternatives rather obvious? Not jump out of your seat and kidnap the son of the Warden of the West when you had NO PROOF other than heresay and he'd obviously be freed in any trial that didn't reek of bias, which obviously the Warden of the West would not sit idly by at such a trial. It's not like Tywin wasn't one of the greatest strategists in both battle and politics in the Kingdom... Best not upset the man without rock solid proof.

How about letting Jaime go free. At the time, that was most unwise from a strategy POV or thoughts for her son and all the people of the North and the Riverlands that were depending on her sound judgement to help them through this hard time. That's not even considering that she did so with but one guard to take him through war-torn country rife with patrols and bandits. It was a bad decision even if she had a squad of knights protecting him on his way, nevermind just a single knight.

That's just for starters.