Sexism in Catelyn bashing

[salinea]

Stranger,

No, no, no. Earlier -- the thread before that.

Ooooh. It all starts making sense. Where's that thread, please? Do you remember the title?

[salinea]

No, more like 3-4 years ago.

woaw.

Grudge much?

[Prince of the North]

Stranger,

Is your memory so short?! Tsk, tsk, tsk!

Very well, then. Do you remember a little scene in the tower in the first book? Jon wants to see Bran, but the btich is there, hovering over him with her fangs and claws and bloodshot eyes. Jon goes to take a single step into the room, and she whirls on him unprovoked, snarling and snapping. She bays at the moon and then, looming over Jon and in her fetid breath she sneers, "It should have been you, you snivelling turd!"

Next to that, what is raising a murderous bastard like Clegane back to "life," or letting the whole realm tear itself to pieces for the sake of a false crown? Next to that, what matter a heart devoted to its own selfishness instead of ever considering doing without for the betterment of others?

HA! I LOVE this! It hits the nail squarely on the head (if you were being sarcastic, that is.)

My personal take on this is that Catelyn never had a chance with many, many people after she uttered those fateful words: "It should have been you, Jon!" With many people nothing she could ever say or do from that point forward would redeem her in their eyes. In fact, everything Catelyn does from that point on is viewed in most negative light possible. Hell, it even seems to me that some use this event to retroactively make a case that Catelyn ALWAYS treated Jon like shit when nothing in the text indicates that. And please don't hand me the fact that Jon couldn't sit with the family when King Robert visited. No one, anywhere would have risked insulting the King by seating a bastard with the royal family so that has little to do with Jon and Catelyn's "personal" relationship. It seems to me that the text indicates Catelyn's treatment of Jon (except for the instance in question) could largely be characterized as one of indifference and avoidance, not active hostility.

I think it basically comes down to whether one can understand/forgive Catelyn's treatment of Jon in that instance or not. I don't know, maybe it's just me but that's my take on it.

[Piper]

My personal take on this is that Catelyn never had a chance with many, many people after she uttered those fateful words: "It should have been you, Jon!" With many people nothing she could ever say or do from that point forward would redeem her in their eyes. In fact, everything Catelyn does from that point on is viewed in most negative light possible. Hell, it even seems to me that some use this event to retroactively make a case that Catelyn ALWAYS treated Jon like shit when nothing in the text indicates that. And please don't hand me the fact that Jon couldn't sit with the family when King Robert visited. No one, anywhere would have risked insulting the King by seating a bastard with the royal family so that has little to do with Jon and Catelyn's "personal" relationship. It seems to me that the text indicates Catelyn's treatment of Jon (except for the instance in question) could largely be characterized as one of indifference and avoidance, not active hostility.

I think it basically comes down to whether one can understand/forgive Catelyn's treatment of Jon in that instance or not. I don't know, maybe it's just me but that's my take on it.

Well, there was one other incident than that one remark. Ned even calls her cruel to Jon for it, namely refusing to let Jon stay in Winterfell after Ned went south:

. . . "Jon must go," she said now.

"He and Robb are close," Ned said. "I had hoped . . . "

"He cannot stay here," Catelyn said, cutting him off. "He is your son, not mine. I will not have him here." It was hard, she knew, but no less the truth. Ned would do the boy no kindness by leaving him here at Winterfell.

The look Ned gave her was anguished. "You know I cannot take him south . . . [bit about bastards at court] . . . "How can you be so damnably cruel, Catelyn, he is only a boy. He -"

She dislikes him enough to refuse to keep him in the same castle with her. Justified or not, this example is certainly proof of more than "indifference and avoidance."

[Prince of the North]

Well, there was one other incident than that one remark. Ned even calls her cruel to Jon for it, namely refusing to let Jon stay in Winterfell after Ned went south:

. . . "Jon must go," she said now.

"He and Robb are close," Ned said. "I had hoped . . . "

"He cannot stay here," Catelyn said, cutting him off. "He is your son, not mine. I will not have him here." It was hard, she knew, but no less the truth. Ned would do the boy no kindness by leaving him here at Winterfell.

The look Ned gave her was anguished. "You know I cannot take him south . . . [bit about bastards at court] . . . "How can you be so damnably cruel, Catelyn, he is only a boy. He -"

She dislikes him enough to refuse to keep him in the same castle with her. Justified or not, this example is certainly proof of more than "indifference and avoidance."

That's a great example! But I still maintain that we saw nothing but indifference and avoidance from Catelyn toward Jon until circumstances at Winterfell were going to change. Namely, Ned, who had been responsible for Jon, would no longer be there so she didn't want to have to take on a more active role with Jon. Now, I believe we can all agree that Catelyn never liked or trusted Jon because he is a bastard and a constant reminder of that which she would rather not be reminded. But I honestly don't recall Catelyn ever being actively hostile to Jon until the Bran incident and your great example above.

[Guest Other-in-law]

PotN,

"Indifference and avoidance" seems like soft-pedaling it to me. Before that line in Bran's sickroom she had never so much as addressed him by name. That sounds like something requiring dedication and effort to do to someone who you've lived with and eaten meals at the same table with for more than a decade.

The Dany-bashers have usually seemed the most sexist to me, in that the sole female contender for the throne is constantly called a stupid whore, needs to die, etc, etc, etc.

[CelticBrennus]

The question then to ask is why would things at Winterfell change when Ned left, and Catelyn remained. The only answer, as Catelyn herself says, is that she will not permit it. It is not what is best for the Stark House, but what is best for her.

She hates him for the mere fact he is alive, to the point of throwing him out of the only place he has ever lived with no care of what becomes of him. If she was not actively hostile to him prior to the accident, it would appear it was because of Eddard's influence in the castle to force her into feigned indifference rather then open hostility.

By forcing Jon out, she removed a person with unquestioned loyalty to the Stark House, and to Robb personally, as well as tearing him away from Arya. Jon and Ghost could have been a great asset to Robb during his lifetime.

[Bronn Stone]

We see a much more standard response to baseborn children from Cersei. She has them murdered. Even people who don't suspect the truth about Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen are not surprised at the tale that Cersei had twin bastards of Robert's put to death at Casterly Rock. Lady Hornwood is presumed to oppose a bastard inheriting even though her trueborn children are dead. The standard treatment for a bastard is to send him/her off with some other relative to raise

It is a huge social no-no in Westeros for a lord to flaunt his bastards in front of his wife. Eddard has done her a great insult. Catelyn's response is mild by comparison. And of course, the only reason I can see for doing so is that Jon isn't actually his bastard and he's sworn to conceal Jon's true heritage on that mother's deathbed, but that is another pointless argument for which later on there will be much I-told-you-so-ness.

Eddard did something that is simply not done. And would not tell Catelyn why, in all their years of marriage - as far as we know the only significant secret he kept from her. And she resented the hell out of it. With good reason.

Cersei would have never tolerated it. Neither would have Olenna Tyrell. Nor Maege Mormont. Nor any of the Dornish women we've met. Baseborn children in the Twins are kept close, but Lord Walder is known to insult his wives at any opportunity.

[CelticBrennus]

Do you think that her decision was the correct one? How does it fit with the Tully words, Family Duty Honor, a point brought up earlier? Was it the best choice for her family that Jon be ostracized and expelled from Winterfell? Was it the best choice for Robb and Arya or was it the best choice for her?

Besides, being a better person the Cercei Lannister does not exactly nominate you for Woman of the Year.

[Padraig]

By forcing Jon out, she removed a person with unquestioned loyalty to the Stark House, and to Robb personally, as well as tearing him away from Arya. Jon and Ghost could have been a great asset to Robb during his lifetime.

Well, since Arya was going to KL, Jon was always going to be torn away from Arya. If Catelyn knew Jon would have unquestioning loyalty to the Starks, she wouldn't have sent him away. She thought what was best for herself, was what was best for the Starks.

I admit that her relationship with Jon doesn't show her in a great light but considering the circumstances, I don't blame her unduly. As Cat says herself, the shadowy figure of Jon's mother hung over their marriage, even though it was a very successful one in many ways. And you can argue that she justified her dislike of Jon by worrying that he would turn on her children.

Also, it should be noted that we don't know what would have happened if Luwin hadn't mentioned Jon's request to go to the Wall. Up to then Cat had wanted Jon to go with Ned. Ned could have forced her to back down.

[Bronn Stone]

Do you think that her decision was the correct one? How does it fit with the Tully words, Family Duty Honor, a point brought up earlier? Was it the best choice for her family that Jon be ostracized and expelled from Winterfell? Was it the best choice for Robb and Arya or was it the best choice for her?

For Arya - probably. Her chance of becoming the sort of woman that she'd need to become to thrive in her society would go way up if she turned her back on the tomboy thing.

For Robb - probably neutral. Yes he'd do well with a trusted friend nearby, but developing a close relationship with a bastard would not be considered lordly and it might well become an obstacle to his forming a friendship with the heir to another great house. Or with his own brothers.

For Bran - definitely. Jon's close relationship is a serious obstacle to Bran becoming Robb's true right hand - the role that his parents envision for him.

For Rickon - definitely. The same apply

For Jon himself - depends. It seems very unlikely that Catelyn would insist that Jon be sent someplace dreadful. He might do well strengthening the connection between Stark and Umber or Stark and Karstark or even one of the Southern houses.

But you still conveniently ignore the fact that raising bastards under their own roof is something that honorable Westerosi lords SIMPLY DO NOT DO.

[CelticBrennus]

If Catelyn knew Jon would have unquestioning loyalty to the Starks, she wouldn't have sent him away. She thought what was best for herself, was what was best for the Starks.

Ah, so you agree with me that Catelyn Stark is the woman who is always wrong when it counts.

For Robb

How so? Do we see anything in the books that indicates that a Northern lord keeping a bastard around as bad form, or something that would be looked down on?

For Bran

Pre accident, you might have a point, but post accident, it is clear that Jon would be useful in ways that Bran could not be.

Even pre accident, I am unsure that Jon would prevent Bran from becoming Robb's confidant or advisor. Same questions with regard to Rickon.

I am reminded of the (i think it was Bran, maybe Jon) incident where Bran was traveling north, and thinking that he might be given lordship of some of the abandoned lands in the Gift after the Winter ended. Jon, Bran and Rickon all could have recieved lands in the Gift and begun new branches of the House, and created more loyal bannermen.

[Kingslayer]

I must be one of the rare people who don't hold Catelyn's remarks to Jon against her, but dislike her for other reasons.

I would say Ned is at fault there. Why couldn't he tell his wife, "The boy is my sister's son?" She may have raised him as one of her own had he done that.

[Bronn Stone]

Well, since Arya was going to KL, Jon was always going to be torn away from Arya. If Catelyn knew Jon would have unquestioning loyalty to the Starks, she wouldn't have sent him away. She thought what was best for herself, was what was best for the Starks.

I don't agree here. I don't think Catelyn mistrusted Jon's loyalty, but she did realize that he was a threat to the role she envisioned for her own children - a role that in a hereditary aristocratic environment SHOULD have been their birthright. Which is why she accepts Jon in the Watch so readily. It is honorable service, and a tradition of House Stark. But it removes the threat of Jon usurping the role as Robb's trusted advisor that she wants her own sons to eventually occupy.

Catelyn may well have been trying to forestall the sort of resentment that divided Stannis and Robert. Stannis certainly resents that his rights as eldest brother behind Robert were trampled over when the rich seat of Storm's End went to Renly and he got the barren isolated Dragonstone. Had Catelyn allowed Robb and Jon to continue as bosom buddies, someday Lord Robb might well have been inclined to honor Snow above Stark.

[Bronn Stone]

I would say Ned is at fault there. Why couldn't he tell his wife, "The boy is my sister's son?" She may have raised him as one of her own had he done that.

"Promise me Ned"

[The_BlauerDragon]

The question then to ask is why would things at Winterfell change when Ned left, and Catelyn remained. The only answer, as Catelyn herself says, is that she will not permit it. It is not what is best for the Stark House, but what is best for her.

She hates him for the mere fact he is alive, to the point of throwing him out of the only place he has ever lived with no care of what becomes of him. If she was not actively hostile to him prior to the accident, it would appear it was because of Eddard's influence in the castle to force her into feigned indifference rather then open hostility.

By forcing Jon out, she removed a person with unquestioned loyalty to the Stark House, and to Robb personally, as well as tearing him away from Arya. Jon and Ghost could have been a great asset to Robb during his lifetime.

I would hazard to say that had Jon been with Robb during his campaign, Jon would have talked some sensibility back into him and prevented him from marrying his "comforter". In other words, had Cat not prevented Jon from becoming Robb's right hand man, Robb would still be alive and winning battles. The wall would be in a very BAD way, but Robb would be alive and winning the war.

[Bronn Stone]

I would hazard to say that had Jon been with Robb during his campaign, Jon would have talked some sensibility back into him and prevented him from marrying his "comforter". In other words, had Cat not prevented Jon from becoming Robb's right hand man, Robb would still be alive and winning battles. The wall would be in a very BAD way, but Robb would be alive and winning the war.

The Wall is the war that must be won. The war on which humanity will survive or fall. Jon is exactly where he needs to be.

[CelticBrennus]

But it removes the threat of Jon usurping the role as Robb's trusted advisor that she wants her own sons to eventually occupy.

Where do we see this as being her plan?

[Kingslayer]

"Promise me Ned"

Pfft, Starks and their honor. I'm sure Lyanna would have made an exception for his wife, had she foreseen Jon's difficulties.

[Lord Mord]

CB,

She hates him for the mere fact he is alive, to the point of throwing him out of the only place he has ever lived with no care of what becomes of him.

Meh. He'll live. At worst, Catelyn never says, "And you can't help him, either. Don't pay a tradesperson to apprentice him, don't set him up in a little farm, don't give him a fortune to spend as he pleases."

Nope. It's just "Don't let him stay here." One castle, out of the whole world, where he's no longer welcome, when, in the first place, he was a guest there, forced on her. She suffered him to be there, presumably because Ned wanted him to close to himself. If Ned is going to go, and won't take Jon with him, then there's nothing left to serve Ned in this. He says he wants Jon to stay, but he can't really justify it. Jon is of an age, at this time, when he is supposed to be able to take care of himself, or at the very, very least, could, as I have said above, be apprenticed to some trade.

Why does he have to stay at Winterfell? Why is what becomes of this long-suffered guest Catelyn's concern, when Ned has undertaken his welfare to date?

By forcing Jon out, she removed a person with unquestioned loyalty to the Stark House, and to Robb personally, as well as tearing him away from Arya. Jon and Ghost could have been a great asset to Robb during his lifetime.

It's a mixed bag.

However much Jon may love Robb now, and whatever his loyalties now, he ultimately still presents a threat to Robb and the whole legitimate line. The gods only know what slight he may take in the future, and with a claim (though admittedly tainted) to the North, there's no telling what he might do if offended.

If you tell me she has some personal stake in this, in the sense of getting rid of the shame that Ned splashed on her by taking the bastard home, then I cannot say you are wrong. But whatever value Jon poses as a boy is somewhat outweighed by the possible threat he poses as a man. In any case, your accusation that it can have been only a spiteful move, with no thought for the future, is certainly bogus.