Sexism in ASOIAF?

[shadow catlady]

Although Datepalm has a good point too, that there are enough women in the book that they might engage each other more.

I think that the fact that much of the plot occurs in male spheres of existence limits female interaction. War, the NW, politics/ court, traipsing about the country in rough conditions, etc. Mostly males do these things, or the Brienne/ Asha/ Arya types. Women like Catelyn and Cersei are, during the times that this story takes place, devoted to sons, and drawn into these male worlds without many other females.

Since I find this scenario realistic, I don't register it as sexist. I do recognize that the choice to have important plot take place within these male spheres of existence could itself be sexist, but, since that's where the action is in a patriarchal society, I can buy it.

I think moments like Arya in the acorn dress with Lady Smallwood? (not sure), or Margaery's girl gang satisfy me; women are bonding or interacting or making impressions on each other, just not all the time in the middle of the action.

I love the family stats, though! Very interesting! They've made me wonder about my personal interaction with the books. I am from a strong big sister/ little brother bond, and have never entirely understood the sister interactions that some of friends have. I know this is why I love Meera and Jojen together, and also Jon/ Arya, though that's less similar, or even Catelyn/ Edmure. But maybe it's also biased me in favor of the way the story is told, as well, and thus I never minded the disparities.

[mormont]

That's a fair point: a lot of time is spent on Sansa and Arya, so Martin must have found them worth examining. And there's some time spent on Catelyn and Lysa as well. But then we see a lot of brotherly relationships that do get page time and are relevant: Jaime and Tyrion, the Baratheon brothers, Tywin and Kevan, Hoster and Brynden, the older generation of Greyjoy brothers.... and that's not counting foster brothers like Robert and Ned; there's no female equivalent there either.

Well, no. Girls aren't fostered. ;)

As for the list above, Hoster and Brynden's relationship is a very minor plot point concerning secondary characters, referred to only a couple of times, really. (It gets attention from fans, because the Blackfish is a fan favourite, but not that much from the author, Hoster's deathbed scene aside.) The other relationships are more central, true, but with the exception of the first, not as important as Arya and Sansa.

One also has to account for brother-sister relationships, I think. The relationships Jaime and Tyrion have with Cersei, for example, can't really fairly be written off as being ones where the woman is only interesting in relation to the male characters: in fact, it's arguable that the opposite is the case, that the way she relates to her brothers is more interesting than vice versa. Her hatred and suspicion of Tyrion are more interesting than his casual contempt for her. I can even argue that her feelings for him are more nuanced: we see in ACOK, when Jaime's life is under threat and Tywin is doing nothing, that she turns to Tyrion in despair, not just for help but for comfort. Similarly, Arya's relationship with Jon is more interesting than his with her: it tells us far more about Arya's character that she is determined to make no distinction between him and her other siblings than it does to know that Jon is fond of his little sister. (In fact, in relation to the Starks, it's easily arguable that the three most interesting characters in the family are the women. The men are fairly one-dimensional.)

I think the main problem lies in that 'second tier' of characters, though: outside the Lannisters and Starks (and Dany - many of her important relationships are with women, after all), I think your point stands up better.

You're right that the brotherly relationships that are celebrated tend to get very little page time, at least with the characters being together.... but Jon and Robb's relationship comes up a lot and informs their actions (particularly Jon's), which is another thing you don't see with sisters.

I think you overstate the importance of that relationship. Outside of that one (negative) moment where he flashes back to how Robb told him he could never be Lord of Winterfell, and the attempt to run away to join Robb way back in AGOT (which can be put down as much to his relationship with Ned), where is it particularly influential? The odd thing about Jon, for my money, is how little his behaviour is influenced by his relationships with his siblings. He hardly thinks of them any more.

[Datepalm]

(and Dany - many of her important relationships are with women, after all)

Huh? Dany has startlingly little interaction with women - or rather, she has no important interaction with women. Irri and who Jhiqui are her constant companions are like...quinternary characters at best. In the crazy fantasy pastiche of Essos, there was no particular reason why Quarth couldn't be dominated by women or for Dany to have ended up in Kayakayna instead, or something. (not that theres not interesting stuff going on there with Danys 'only woman in the room' status reinforcing all sorts of other alienation, but i'm not sure whether thats an integral point the series is making on gender, or just good writing working with what its got.)

[mormont]

Huh? Dany has startlingly little interaction with women - or rather, she has no important interaction with women.

Apart from Irri and Jhiqui (and Doreah), who I agree are minor characters but are or were very important relationships to Dany nonetheless, there's Mirri Maz Duur and Quaithe. The former relationship was vital to Dany's development, the latter will probably be so in future.

[Errant Bard]

I think you overstate the importance of that relationship. Outside of that one (negative) moment where he flashes back to how Robb told him he could never be Lord of Winterfell, and the attempt to run away to join Robb way back in AGOT (which can be put down as much to his relationship with Ned), where is it particularly influential? The odd thing about Jon, for my money, is how little his behaviour is influenced by his relationships with his siblings. He hardly thinks of them any more.

Even Ned/Robert wasn't that important, if you go that way, after all, outside of the coup it didn't change much. :P

But the relationship between Jon and Robb is what makes Robb nominate Jon as heir to his "kingdom" which will have consequences, and it is also (a part of) why Jon refuses to take the Winterfell when offered, he says it, during his guilt trip: he "loved his brother, but...". It's also a big part of Jon's characterization, the importance of "brothers" and loyalty for him. The last scene with Sam is funny that way: it mirrors the last scene with Robb, a separation where both "brothers" have snow melting in their hair, ambiguously reminding us that Jon loves Sam like his own brother, yet that like his own brother he would ultimately forsake him for duty and the greater good.

When you compare that to Arya/Sansa, you see the two girls were just foils for each others as long as they were together, but all in all once they are separated, it's like they had no sister before. There is no impact on characterization nor on personal story.

[Happy Ent]

Happy Ent suggested that female readers want to see women like Asha, Arya, and Chataya [...] I was especially intrigued by his mention of Chataya. The happy prostitute just doesn't seem to me like a character that appeals to large numbers of women, or whose appeal is mostly to women rather than men.

Let me be more precise.

There are two aspects to the Chataya fantasy, none of which I am particularly fond of.

1. She’s happy to be a whore. This has been debated a bit on this thread, and I agree that it is not a particularly female fantasy.

2. More importantly (to me), she’s self-employed and hence empowered. Apparently, prostitution in Westeros does not use the violent, male power structure often seen regulating prostitution (“pimping”). There’s another fan-favourite book that makes this even more explicit: Lynch’s The Lies of Locke Lamora, complete with back story about how once the (plentiful) male criminal stratum of Camorr tried to take over prostitution, but their attempt was foiled by a combination of female cleverness and sex.

This latter conceit is, I think, a predominantly female fantasy. If you want to write a book that appeals to a female readership, your whores not only have to be happy, they have to operate in a violence-free environment free of thugs, gangs, and crime lords; customer-on-prostitute violence (or rape) is either unheard of (by authorial fiat) or countered by some clever ploy.

To summarise, Chataya, but not Shae, is an example of GRRM appealing to a large female readership. (And Scott Lynch, whose books I otherwise am very fond of, is far more guilty of this.) Whereas an author like Bakker who gets prostitution mostly right (*) is certain to alienate a female readership.

(*) His early descriptions of Esmenet are still very romantic, but as far as I remember he has understood this by now and feels bad about it.

[Datepalm]

Apart from Irri and Jhiqui (and Doreah), who I agree are minor characters but are or were very important relationships to Dany nonetheless, there's Mirri Maz Duur and Quaithe. The former relationship was vital to Dany's development, the latter will probably be so in future.

Well, yes, logically we have to assume that Irri and Jhuiqui must be extremely important to Dany, because she spends so much time with them, but we don't really see it and it has no bearing on the story. Jeynedand Septa Mordane must have been extremely important to Sansa as well, and so were Catelyns vanished ladies...its not a question of where there are blanks we can fill in, but why those blanks are there in the first place.

MMD was only around for a few chapters - she was important, and their relashionship touched on those deep thematic issues as well - but ultimately she was still a pretty minor character. Im looking forward to seeing what happens with Quaithe, but so far shes made a few cryptic comments and thats it.

[mormont]

But the relationship between Jon and Robb is what makes Robb nominate Jon as heir to his "kingdom"

This is still technically speculation, so there. ;)

But the conversation with Cat that precedes the decree (whatever it might actually say :P), fair enough, that's important on Robb's part.

it is also (a part of) why Jon refuses to take the Winterfell when offered, he says it, during his guilt trip: he "loved his brother, but..."

Part of, but not the biggest part. Bigger by far is Jon's realisation of his own identity. And on the flip side of that decision, Jon's relationship with Ned is a bigger factor also.

It's also a big part of Jon's characterization, the importance of "brothers" and loyalty for him. The last scene with Sam is funny that way: it mirrors the last scene with Robb, a separation where both "brothers" have snow melting in their hair, ambiguously reminding us that Jon loves Sam like his own brother, yet that like his own brother he would ultimately forsake him for duty and the greater good.

A good point, and of course another crucial male-male relationship.

When you compare that to Arya/Sansa, you see the two girls were just foils for each others as long as they were together, but all in all once they are separated, it's like they had no sister before. There is no impact on characterization nor on personal story.

I don't think that's fair at all. The girls think of each other as often, if not more often, than they think of their brothers. And I think it's clear that their current characters were influenced, if not formed, by their previous rivalry - in a way that isn't so for any of the boys, incidentally. Bran could have had no brothers, but if Arya had no sisters, would she be quite the tomboy she is? I don't think so.

[Datepalm]

This latter conceit is, I think, a predominantly female fantasy. If you want to write a book that appeals to a female readership, your whores not only have to be happy, they have to operate in a violence-free environment free of thugs, gangs, and crime lords; customer-on-prostitute violence (or rape) is either unheard of (by authorial fiat) or countered by some clever ploy.

To summarise, Chataya, but not Shae, is an example of GRRM appealing to a large female readership. (And Scott Lynch, whose books I otherwise am very fond of, is far more guilty of this.) Whereas an author like Bakker who gets prostitution mostly right (*) is certain to alienate a female readership.

I think thats...unbased on fact. at best. Show me a representative survey of female readers attituds towards those books, and we'll talk. I didn't see Chataya as pandering to female readers (unlike Asha or Arianne, for example). Shes a throwaway character who's relative well being is to put a nice face on prostitution and disguise somewhat the abusiveness of Tyrions relashionship with Shae so he - and we - can be duped into being surprised when she 'betrays' him.

I don't even remember the happy entreprenuerial whores of LoLL. I think its more that men are enamoured of prostitutes, and add the joy and empowerment to tick the box of feminist sensibility. Its still their choice to write these hoardes of female characters whos defining quality is default sexual availability. I have a hard time believing women are reading these characters and going 'hell yeah!'.

One of the odder things about Careys book too is how little the prostitution actually has to do with money. Half the time shes screwing for balckmail or politics or secrets or whatnot, and when money is brought up, its to demonstrate who terribly expensive Phaedre is. She never needs it to survive, to make a living. Its never just a job.

[Errant Bard]

This is still technically speculation, so there. ;)

Right, I meant "thought of him". If Jon was not a candidate it would ease things in the future, that's for certain.

I don't think that's fair at all. The girls think of each other as often, if not more often, than they think of their brothers.

I don't think so. I'd have to look at the chapters, but once they are separated, I cannot remember Arya thinking of Sansa outside of her flight from King's Landing (when she almost wishes for the hammer of water to smash KL, but remembers Sansa is there), the time where she learns of Joffrey dying by her hand, and the time she joins the FM (but she thinks of her whole family then)

Sansa... when does she think of Arya? I cannot remember

And I think it's clear that their current characters were influenced, if not formed, by their previous rivalry - in a way that isn't so for any of the boys, incidentally. Bran could have had no brothers, but if Arya had no sisters, would she be quite the tomboy she is? I don't think so.

Well, Asha, Lyanna or Brienne) have no sister... are they less of a tomboy?

Of course she would, since GRRM would have still made her a tomboy. As much as Bran was a climber. I'm a bit hesitant with conflating personality at the start with changes shown in the text to have been brought by relationships. That's for me the difference between a foil and an impacting relation, the foil highlights differences, while the other actually brings the change. Arya follows her path, and so does Sansa, what one does or did is irrelevant to the other, as long as you keep they starting character sheet the same.

As a thought experiment, I imagined Sansa was not Arya's sister, and that they in fact did not know each others beside Darry, kept the personalities the same. Everything still plays out the same, in my head, I can't see anything hanging on their sisterly bond, not even bad feelings.

[mormont]

I don't think so. I'd have to look at the chapters, but once they are separated, I cannot remember Arya thinking of Sansa outside of her flight from King's Landing (when she almost wishes for the hammer of water to smash KL, but remembers Sansa is there), the time where she learns of Joffrey dying by her hand, and the time she joins the FM (but she thinks of her whole family then)

Sansa... when does she think of Arya? I cannot remember

Well, for a start when she wonders if Arya escaped, and IIRC during the snow-Winterfell scene too.

Well, Asha, Lyanna or Brienne) have no sister... are they less of a tomboy?

A poor argument, as it assumes that there is only one way to become a tomboy. ;) As it happens, we have strong indications that Lyanna is less of a tomboy, for one, but that's equally irrelevant.

Of course she would, since GRRM would have still made her a tomboy.

Possibly, but that's not really what we're discussing here. The point is that the way he did write Arya, he gave her a sister who was very successful in the 'traditional' female role, while Arya was not. He also made clear there was a strong sibling rivalry between them, and that this was at least partly because of Arya's relative failure at 'traditional' feminine pursuits and Sansa's relative success at them. The obvious implication is that a traditional family dynamic of separation is at play: the sisters derive and reinforce their identity in opposition to each other. The more successful Sansa is at sewing, the more Arya is driven into other pursuits for validation and a sense of her own identity. The contrast is emphasised over and over in AGOT. I can't see any way in which this relationship can't be seen as essential to both girls' characters.

[Red Sun]

To summarise, Chataya, but not Shae, is an example of GRRM appealing to a large female readership. (And Scott Lynch, whose books I otherwise am very fond of, is far more guilty of this.) Whereas an author like Bakker who gets prostitution mostly right (*) is certain to alienate a female readership.

(*) His early descriptions of Esmenet are still very romantic, but as far as I remember he has understood this by now and feels bad about it.

As Datepalm said already, that statement is hardly provable, and if I remember correctly, the criticism with the female characters in Bakker's work is based on the fact that sex is the most important aspect for all three important female characters. But I don't think that all problems with Esmenet's portrayal are linked to the fact that she is not an empowered whore. I always found her a well-written character, my problems with her character or with the books run deeper than that aspect.

[Errant Bard]

Well, for a start when she wonders if Arya escaped, and IIRC during the snow-Winterfell scene too.

Indeed, I just looked, she thinks of Bran and Robb and Hullen too, it's mostly similar to what Arya goes through. I had forgotten

She remembered a summer's snow in Winterfell when Arya and Bran had ambushed her as she emerged from the keep one morning. They'd each had a dozen snowballs to hand, and she'd had none. Bran had been perched on the roof of the covered bridge, out of reach, but Sansa had chased Arya through the stables and around the kitchen until both of them were breathless. She might even have caught her, but she'd slipped on some ice. Her sister came back to see if she was hurt. When she said she wasn't, Arya hit her in the face with another snowball, but Sansa grabbed her leg and pulled her down and was rubbing snow in her hair when Jory came along and pulled them apart, laughing.

Possibly, but that's not really what we're discussing here. The point is that the way he did write Arya, he gave her a sister who was very successful in the 'traditional' female role, while Arya was not.

Agreed

He also made clear there was a strong sibling rivalry between them, and that this was at least partly because of Arya's relative failure at 'traditional' feminine pursuits and Sansa's relative success at them.

I don't see the rivalry. I see the antagonism, but no desire to one-up each other. A background explanation by the author may or may not emphasize the importance of environment on the development of the girls' personality, but all I see in the books is two characters whose personalities are well-defined and not changed by their relationship. What happens before or outside the books is empty conjecture that will obviously go the way you want it to go.

The obvious implication is that a traditional family dynamic of separation is at play: the sisters derive and reinforce their identity in opposition to each other. The more successful Sansa is at sewing, the more Arya is driven into other pursuits for validation and a sense of her own identity. The contrast is emphasised over and over in AGOT. I can't see any way in which this relationship can't be seen as essential to both girls' characters.

I'm no psychologist. Neither is Martin, I guess, so that probably makes it fair game, thinking about it. But I don't see what's obvious here: these are fictional characters, the author makes them the way he wants just because. Considering his take on genetics in Westeros, and the instances where there are "girly girls" and "tomboys" without sisters, I tend to view character creation to be (if not specified otherwise in the text) more dependent on Nature than on Nurture.

Not to say characters are not part of a whole so of course family relations are, in a way, an essential part to their characterization, it's just that you can remove Sansa from Arya's family (and inversely) without changing anything in the book, it has has no impact.

I guess I'm not clear, I'm trying to speak of the difference between being forced to rewrite and having the possibility to rewrite, here. Meaningful for me equates to something you cannot remove from the story without some sort of chain reaction, beside removing mentions of the bond.

ETA: Isn't there some way to keep Bakker in his own threads?

[Alexia]

I don't see the rivalry. I see the antagonism, but no desire to one-up each other.

I noticed a desire to one-up each other...in Arya's first chapter, her jealousy of Sansa is made very clear and then in Sansa's first chapter, her embarrassment over Arya is also made clear. I thought it was pretty evident that those emotions affected and reinforced the girls' behavior in regard to each other and their own personalities (lady vs. tomboy).

That being said, yes, I agree that the Arya/Sansa relationship is not shown to affect their actions wrt each other when they are apart as it does with Jon/Robb. To be fair, there doesn't seem to have been any chance for that to happen as it had with Jon and Robb, given that Sansa has been a prisoner and Arya a refugee in disguise, but I do wish GRRM had tried to show us more of the positive. Its clear it existed and that they loved each other but when you compare it to others...

Also agree with Mormont that the Stark ladies are the more interesting members of that family. ;) Although Bran is starting to get good now that he's on the run.

[Happy Ent]

I think thats...unbased on fact. at best. Show me a representative survey of female readers attituds towards those books, and we'll talk.

Oh, now you’re talking statistics. That’s thorny.

I guess that the statistical reading habits of the fairer sex do little to their credit. It’s the romance genre, by a landslide. Throw in some vampires, Bridget Jones, and time-travelling vikings to ameliorate the picture.

So we would need data about the heterogenuous, but averaged, tastes of the self-selected female fantasy readership. I don’t think that’s very helpful, even though I am otherwise obsessed with data and enjoy reasoning in quantitative frameworks.

Instead, I’d base my stereotypes on the sentiments expressed by female critics and readers, in this forum or others. And I observe (with world-weary resignation) that books resonate well with female readerships exactly when they include tomboy warrior princesses, downplay institutional sexism in pre-modern societies (but emphasise latent sexism), and present prostitution like Lynch does, not Bakker.

I don't even remember the happy entreprenuerial whores of LoLL.

Et tu, Brute? I found it extremely galling.

I think its more that men are enamoured of prostitutes, and add the joy and empowerment to tick the box of feminist sensibility. Its still their choice to write these hoardes of female characters whos defining quality is default sexual availability. I have a hard time believing women are reading these characters and going 'hell yeah!'.

I disagree. Alpha males don’t visit prostitutes. They are not part of a male fantasy. Sex slaves, yes. Prostitutes? No, visiting a prostitute is an admission of failure, of weakness. Heroes don’t have to pay for it.

In other words, there are plenty of constructions where male characters can have access to sweet extra-marital lovemaking. Slavery, buxom serving wenches, communal free sex, Eloi, sluts, Japanese school girls on a trip through the forest—there are lots of opportunities to display sexualised and available women, all of which are titillating to read about from a male perspective, arboreal or not. But prostitution? No. The power balance is wrong, and I can remember no instance where it’s used to describe a male character in a way that I found appealing. In fact, the counterexample that spring to mind while I type this (Locke’s whore in Lies and Apollo’s in Battlestar) are exactly from works of fiction against which I have not seen a strong female criticism. (Both include empowered females, of course.)

(This may be a historical shift. Possibly, there was no aura of failure connected with whoring just a generation or two ago.)

So I don’t buy it.

[Datepalm]

So I don't buy it.

Buy what?

I too am shocked and distressed at the lack of quantifiable statistics, but going by general trends...yup, its sex, romance with cute men with ridiculous proffesions, sex again, some nice outfits, and more sex. (I do have a theory that tom clancy novels are the male equivelant of trashy romance due entirely to being the only two types of books in the english language to make use of the word 'manly' unironically, so replace clothes with guns and we're good.) But no prostitutes.

Also, sure, tomboys, warrior girls, machiavellian ice queen sorceresses, what have you - still not so much seeing the whores. Male writers toss that in there to get that famed grittiness/sex appeal, and then can't seem to deal with the sheer brutality of the realistic consequences, (shoutout to China Meivilles horrific brothel in PSS, i'm more conflicted about the Iron Council unions) so happy whores it is, not as a sop to women readers. Thats the aforementioned warrior princesses.

I don't think frequenting whores is male fantasy either - its the character herself, because they do keep on showing up. I don't think Richard Gear was paying Julia Roberts by the end there. (Wierdest movie ever, for my money.)

[Kalbear]

Instead, I’d base my stereotypes on the sentiments expressed by female critics and readers, in this forum or others. And I observe (with world-weary resignation) that books resonate well with female readerships exactly when they include tomboy warrior princesses, downplay institutional sexism in pre-modern societies (but emphasise latent sexism), and present prostitution like Lynch does, not Bakker.

I think that you didn't read said female critics, then. I think the only person who was claiming that women were clamoring for tomboy princesses and hookers with a heart of gold was...you.

Seriously - you have women telling you point blank that this isn't what they want, that's not at all appealing, and then you respond "Oh, I mean other women". Can you point to even one woman who has ever said that they actually want tomboy princesses or hookers in their novel?

On the whore thing: it's almost always a male authorial decision, and it's often (and rightly) condemned by folks as being too stereotypical. It's usually put in to showcase women who want sex in a 'good' way, or allow women to be naughty because it's their nature. Frank Miller is by far the best indicator of this trope, but it's pretty common - and its commonality isn't among female authors and/or those that want female readership. How many romance novels, do you think, have their lead character as a prostitute?

What's really interesting to me is that you focus on things like Chataya and completely ignore people like Catelyn or Cersei or Brienne as reasons why women might like GRRM over other fantasy novels.

But prostitution? No. The power balance is wrong, and I can remember no instance where it’s used to describe a male character in a way that I found appealing.

That doesn't really mean anything though; you don't find male characters appealing unless they're raping things, no? So this is hardly a surprise. (by appealing, I mean 'behaving in a correct pre-modern time way')

In fact, the counterexample that spring to mind while I type this (Locke’s whore in Lies and Apollo’s in Battlestar) are exactly from works of fiction against which I have not seen a strong female criticism. (Both include empowered females, of course.)

To be fair, I've not seen a female-specific criticism of that awful ep of BSG either - because EVERYONE hated it. I've read countless times how stupid it was that prostitution was even involved in BSG - or if it was, that it would be staged in that kind of way. That wasn't exactly an exclusive part of the female readership. Go to TWoP and check out the thread on the ep; you'll see tons of criticism. As to Locke - I've personally read a few 'and he did the same thing most male writers do' as criticism from women. Again though - why does it have to be women saying that it's bad or not? That seems a singularly myopic and invalid sampling rate; wouldn't it be more likely that people who didn't like the book wouldn't write about it?

[Acid Rainbow]

Yeah, the portrayal of Chataya was a bit weird, and it was positively disturbing that she was pimping her daughter.

I haven't read Scott Lynch's books, so I can't compare it with them. Scott Bakker has said that if he portrayed prostitution in the most realistic way possible, Esmenet would be repulsive to most readers.

[Alexia]

Chataya barely registered as a character in my mind; she was so insignificant to the plot or the story. I thought Shae was intended as the portrayal of prostitution and I found that her story rang very true and realistic to me (sexual abuse as a child driving her into it and then being murdered by a john).

As a woman, I have no particular interest in reading about prostitution generally but when I do, I am not at all interested in reading some sort of fairy tale imagining of what prostitution is. I haven't read the books mentioned, but Celia Friedman has a character who is a former prostitute and it was presented as a damaging, traumatic experience.

Catelyn or Cersei or Brienne as reasons why women might like GRRM over other fantasy novels.

Agree. Brienne isn't a favorite but Catelyn, Cersei, Sansa, Arya, Lysa, even Selyse...fascinating characters that hooked me into the series.

[Happy Ent]

Seriously - you have women telling you point blank that this isn't what they want, that's not at all appealing, and then you respond "Oh, I mean other women".

I think I was quite clear. I said things like “if I wanted to write a book for a large female readership.” The well-read, over-educated, and extremely reflected denizens of this board (whatever their chromosomes) do not make a large female readership. As I pointed out to Datepalm, I could easily make whatever point I wanted about the sick and stupid tastes of women by pointing to the literature they consume, but I won’t make that.

I do observe, however, that I seem to be the main voice in such debates to point to appalling absurdities like Chataya or Lynch’s whores. (This may be because I mainly read my own posts…) Bluntly put, happy whores don’t seem to be a topic that gets many women angry, and I don’t understand that. The absence of warrior chicks or “realistic dialogue between self-employed women about something else than men” or whatever other token issue people have learned in their Gender Studies 101 course gets commented on like a Pavlovian response. But intellectual and moral eye-sores like the status of prostitution and pre-modern settings? Few women mention this on our threads.

How many romance novels, do you think, have their lead character as a prostitute?

I have no idea. Really. I had the feeling it was a common genre trope (based entirely of dozens of rewatched Pretty Woman). I’m informed by Datepalm and you that I seem to be wrong about the romance genre.

What's really interesting to me is that you focus on things like Chataya and completely ignore people like Catelyn or Cersei or Brienne as reasons why women might like GRRM over other fantasy novels.

I think I’m pretty far down on the list of people who ignore Catelyn and Brienne. Really.

Cersei, admittedly, doesn’t interest me that much.

That doesn't really mean anything though; you don't find male characters appealing unless they're raping things, no? So this is hardly a surprise. (by appealing, I mean 'behaving in a correct pre-modern time way')

Absurd, and borderline personally offensive. I don’t find that kind of rhetoric conductive to debate and would prefer you’d refrain from it.