Sexism in ASOIAF?

[Happy Ent]

Update: overview of romance novels with heroines who are Courtesants, Mistresses, and Prostitutes at AAR/likesbooks.com (the site that brings us the annual, very funny cover contest.)

Still, nothing in the way of hard data.

[Liadin]

HE, I get the point about women being self-employed, but I really don't think most female readers want to see women who are self-employed as whores. (And, I'm getting this vibe that you think female readers are demanding these unrealistic characters to satisfy wish-fulfillment fantasies while male readers are totally undemanding in their characterization desires--you know, like they don't require badassery or cool nerds getting the girl or anything like that. Sure, as a woman I find it fun to read about Asha, but men find it fun to read about Oberyn. And of course, some men like Asha and some women like Oberyn.)

You point out that men don't fantasize about visiting prostitutes, and that's fair, but the obvious response is that women don't fantasize about being prostitutes, either. I'm hardly an expert on romance novels, but I do know that the readership generally prefers the heroines to be virgins and only have sex with the hero, which precludes any prostitution--and that's a genre that's primarily written by women and appealing to female fantasies. It kind of feels to me like happy, self-employed whores are written into books to assuage male guilt--after all, whores are usually in a book because main (male) characters are having sex with them, and the authors don't want to make their characters look like assholes for supporting an industry that's oppressing its workers.

Maybe I'm wrong and happy whores don't appeal to men at all. But I don't see any evidence that they appeal to women, either. You can point to sales for one or two books/movies, but if it's only one or two, that probably just proves that they were well written/interesting/well acted/etc., and doesn't make a larger point about the appeal of prostitution.

As far as the brothers vs. sisters--we can argue about the relative importance of Sansa and Arya's relationship, but the larger point is that it's the only sisterly relationship that's particularly relevant to the books. If you take the second most important, Cat and Lysa, there are a lot of brothers who get as much or more attention--the Baratheons, the Greyjoys, Tywin and his brothers, and so on. And beyond Cat and Lysa, there aren't any other relevant sisters that I can think of.

But also, for me personally, the importance of the relationship in the character's life is at least as important as its plot relevance. Sansa/Arya isn't the most important or closest relationship in either girl's life, any more than it's the most plot-relevant relationship that either of them has.

[Kalbear]

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.

You could make a similar point about the literature men consume as well. I'm not sure what your point is.

If you were writing a fantasy novel that would appeal to women, you've already likely written off a large chunk of women by writing a spec fic novel. That's the sad truth. The question should be more why that is. If you then chose to put in prostitutes who are really happy, do you think that this would be a selling point? Do you think Oprah or LeGuin are going to put on the back blurb 'A fantasy novel that FINALLY gets the happier side of prostitution!'

Don't be absurd.

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…)

Selection bias. There's plenty of critics of both, but I'd argue that the real reason it's not discussed is because it's largely a non-issue in the novels. Chataya's brothel is an oddity in Westeros, even; it's run by a woman who comes from a culture that is largely fantastical anyway. Her role in the novel is exceedingly small. It's like me focusing on the desecration of the weirwoods to indicate that Martin clearly hates trees or something. To be clear - the story is not about prostitutes. Prostitutes and their culture make up a fairly small amount of the story at all, and when they do show up it is largely in a negative light (Shae, Pia). If you're the only one who is taking offense at it, it's probably because (unlike many other authors) not all the women in the story are prostitutes, and very few of the prostitutes are particularly happy about it.

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.

You certainly ignore it when stating why women might like GRRM.

Okay, here's your thesis: if you wanted to make a fantasy novel with greater appeal to women, you'd insert prostitutes that were happy. Correct? My argument is that if you wanted to make a fantasy novel that would appeal to women, you'd make a fantasy novel that had interesting female characters. But you ignore that completely and focus on one small element of the story and state this is the reason so many women like GRRM.

Again, how absurd is that?

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

I didn't mean to offend. I honestly thought that this was exactly the sort of thing you'd prefer in your premodern fantasy tales. If there are whores, the whores should be raped and murdered, no? That's what you're objecting to with Chataya et al - that there's not enough violence against women and the more negative aspects of being a prostitute are not being displayed prominently enough. How exactly is this not what you want?

[Kalbear]

Update: overview of romance novels with heroines who are Courtesants, Mistresses, and Prostitutes at AAR/likesbooks.com (the site that brings us the annual, very funny cover contest.)

Still, nothing in the way of hard data.

So there are...about 40 in the last 5 years.

Now, care to guess how many romance novels were actually produced? Just in the 'fantasy, ghost and futuristic' setting, there are over 5800 on Amazon.

I do happen to agree with you that the happy hooker is a fairly annoying stereotype (though it wasn't nearly as bad as you paint it to be some of the time; a good book on an interesting time is Good Time Girls. But it seems fairly obvious that that certainly isn't what most women want. You cite Pretty Woman as an example that it is the case; can you cite a single other romance movie that has that archetype that's been successful?

[Happy Ent]

HE, I get the point about women being self-employed, but I really don't think most female readers want to see women who are self-employed as whores.

Well, my original point is getting increasingly spun, so let me take this opportunity to get it clear.

The point I wanted to make, before Easter (and in another thread, I think), that if you want to market a book to women, you better make your whores happy and self-employed. (You correctly point out that another solution would be to not include any whores at all. Same goes for rape, I think.)

Revisiting this thread I can see that most comments on my claim focusses on the happiness of the whore. I mainly pointed out upthread that the self-empowerment of Chataya would be just as important. (You can’t have a happy whore who is routinely beaten, threatened, or raped, but also protected, by her pimp or other violent crime gang overlord.)

(And, I'm getting this vibe that you think female readers are demanding these unrealistic characters to satisfy wish-fulfillment fantasies while male readers are totally undemanding in their characterization desires—

That would be stupid of me, of course. The tastes of women suck. The tastes of men also suck.

Also, I don’t think women “demand” these characters, at least not in so many words. But if you put these characters in, you can expect a large female fanbase. If you fail to put these characters in there, you will not have a large female fanbase.

And of course, some men like Asha and some women like Oberyn.

I like neither. I like Catelyn.

[Datepalm]

It kind of feels to me like happy, self-employed whores are written into books to assuage male guilt--after all, whores are usually in a book because main (male) characters are having sex with them, and the authors don't want to make their characters look like assholes for supporting an industry that's oppressing its workers.

I'm not sure. I have very small sample size here...the unremembered LLoL, ASOIAF, Pretty Woman, that episode of Firefly, Kushiels whatnot, a Mike Resnick book I never finished set in a brothel....Maybe i'm not reading the right books. Oh, i'm sure theres hookers in Altered Carbon somewhere.

Anyway, in almost none of them that I can recall does the main character actually sleep with a whore for money. The nature of the fantasy here would seem to be that our alpha male is just so utterly special that even prostitutes do him for free. The notable exception is Tyrion (And possibly Locke? Though I vaugely recall he dosen't go through with it...) which is not at all a positive, happy situation and Shae is just about the worlds most miserable whore.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Btw, even as non-hard data, that AAR page isn't showing much. 37 novels listed over more than 50 years of publication. Estimates of the annual romance novel publication is something from a few hundred to more than two thousand titles per year, internationally.

Actually, Romance Writers of American says that over 7000 romance books were released in 2008 alone. Even if you argue that that was a banner year, and that the page you gave doesn't list all possible novels with a courtesan/mistress/prostitute as a hero or heroine -- which it can't, realistically, with so many novels being published -- 37 is statistically insignificant, unless those 37 titles are consistently and dramatically outselling the others.

Do happy hooker stories exist? Yes. (Though I'd point out that just because a hero/heroine is a prostitute doesn't automatically make him/her happy, so that AAR list might need narrowing to fit this definition.) Is it some kind of common trope in fiction, even in romance novels? No.

[Datepalm]

The point I wanted to make, before Easter (and in another thread, I think), that if you want to market a book to women, you better make your whores happy and self-employed. (You correctly point out that another solution would be to not include any whores at all. Same goes for rape, I think.)

Come on, what women? Bra burning seperatist lesbians? Googly eyed 14 year olds who's only other reading ever consists of Twilight? Crazy cat owning spinsters who are the stereotypical consumers of romance? Who?

[Alexia]

Also, I don’t think women “demand” these characters, at least not in so many words. But if you put these characters in, you can expect a large female fanbase. If you fail to put these characters in there, you will not have a large female fanbase.

HE, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that women are less likely to read books that do not feature empowered prostitutes or are you trying to say that if a book features a prostitute, women are less likely to read unless that prostitute is empowered?

Incidentally, I don't know any women for whom this factors into their reading habits. I know most women tend to prefer romance novels as a general rule, but most of my girlfriends tend to read less fluff and more The Kite-Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns and House of the Spirits. I don't know anybody who seeks out narratives on empowered prostitutes.

[Happy Ent]

Come on, what women? Bra burning seperatist lesbians? Googly eyed 14 year olds who's only other reading ever consists of Twilight? Crazy cat owning spinsters who are the stereotypical consumers of romance? Who?

I think all of the huge demographics you enumerate upthread would be repelled by major characters who are (or even were) unhappy, unempowered whores.

Incidentally, I was also thinking of Richard Morgan when I wrote about alpha males a few messages back. Honestly, I can’t remember a whore, but if there was one (and he paid for it) it would indeed provide a perfect counterexample to my claim.

(I do believe that spec fic just a generation ago would be different. I could imagine Conan frequenting whores and paying for it. I could be wrong.)

[Datepalm]

I think all of the huge demographics you enumerate upthread would be repelled by major characters who are (or even were) unhappy, unempowered whores.

Yes, I agree. Thats why writers are making them happy instead. They want to write about prostitutes - prostitutes are fun, titillating, dirty, introduce opportunities for guiltless sex for the hero whithout tarnishing the heroines sacred virginity, etc, but they don't want to write the appaling misery of most real life prostitutes because opinions amongst men and women both have evolved far enough that that would make for an incredibly grim element in the story, so happy hookers it is.

From none of this does it follow that women particularly want to read about prostitutes in the first place.

[Mad Monkey]

I've never read Conan, but in Jim Theis's The Eye of Argon the main character Grignr visits a prostitute. I think. She might have been a princess or something. It's a little hard to understand what's going on; the writing is very lyrical, but I'm pretty sure that she wasn't being oppressed by being a prostitute, unless of course she was.

but they don't want to write the appaling misery of most real life prostitutes because opinions amongst men and women both have evolved far enough that that would make for an incredibly grim element in the story, so happy hookers it is.

So it's just laziness on the part of the author? Sort of like those old stories with happy, self-satisfied slaves.

[Lady Blackfish]

Here on a rushed lunch break -- I would agree with the idea I'm sensing that plenty of female readers often don't really want serious treatments of sexism, they want what we can fondly call Grrl Power. But I don't think that the happy hooker is the most common embodiment of this. The spunky (or some other flavor of) tomboy, the exceptional woman in a man's element, that's always struck me as the queen of the heap. I also think that it's not unheard of that female readers would like to identify with the feeling of being sexy, but again I'm not sure the happy hooker in specific is particularly notable in its embodiment of this.

I also think Pretty Woman is more a Cinderella fantasy than a happy hooker fantasy. That she's a hooker makes you feel bad for her, and yes she gets some sexy scenes with Richard Gere from it, but that's equatable to any romcom sex scene IMO. Some of the subtext did depend on Julia Roberts' character's reticence to be emotionally intimate, which they sold as a job requirement of sorts, but there's really no reveling in her status as a hooker. Rather you're glad when her Prince Charming comes along and makes that life unnecessary for her. It's the man that empowers her, not being a hooker (now she doesn't have to be pawed by icky George Costanza and sneered upon by snooty shop ladies*). Cinderella fantasy.

*ETA: Of course, they didn't really get deep into the realities of life as a hooker, it's definitely a sanitized view, I'm just not sure it qualifies as an empowered hooker fantasy.

[Miriel]

As a female who loves ASOIAF, I had to weigh in a little bit.

I do not read a lot of fantasy, so most of the other books you are referencing passed me by. I've read ASOIAF, Tolkien, and Jordan. Most of my other reading is way outside of the fantasy novel genre, for what that is worth.

But, that being said, I am a huge Martin fan, and just see the whores as another facet of the very elaborate world he has built, as opposed to an example of his hatred (or love) of women, Any more than Vargo Hoat/Gregor Clegane/.Amroy Lorch/the Tickler are examples of his love of soldiers or his hatred of soldiers. The whores, the soldiers, and everyone else who populates his world seem to me to be a kind of a reinforcement of his world that is largely "gray" as opposed to starkly black/white.

To that end then, the oddity of Chataya's establishment as I see it is not b/c she is self empowered (whatever that means) but b/c it is so much catering to the rich and powerful of Westeros. I think that is the meaning of Chataya's house. She is not there to be the Happy Hooker so much as just to illustrate that the rich and powerful have better everything, even whore houses.

But in the end, it is still just a whorehouse.

(The whole Summer Islander "honoring the Gods with love and our bodies" thing is another matter but there is also no doubt that ritual temple prostitution did exist in the real world, although I think there is a little bit of a gullible Margaret Mead-ish feeling to the whole issue. That is a probably whole separate topic though and after thinking about it a bit I do not think it indicates Martin being sexist in any particular way).

The whores who work for Chataya are luckier, in the sense that they are expected to service customers who might be disturbed by sleeping with a women who is obviously miserable/brutalized/diseased. But the luck lasts only so long as their youth and beauty last. The other whores we see (Happy Port, the whorehouse where Gendry meets another of Roberts bastards, Ser Glendon Flowers home, and the situation w/ Rosie in Feast) all seem much more realistic to me. Life there is hard. Imagine a world where your mom sell off your first sexual experience to whoever can pay, for her profit. Horrific. But I have no doubt that such things exist in the real world. But that is not to say that life at Chataya;s is always easy. The (relative) easiness lasts as long as the beauty lasts. And as the whores in Chataya's house age and lose their marketability, I have no doubt they will be demoted out to lower quality houses, where they will have to service more clients etc and that most of their lives will end very badly.

So, overall I saw the various whores in the books as examples of women who I am quite sure did not choose that life, any more than Missandei chose her life, or the various miserable children Dany encounters in Slaver's Bay chose their fates. I never got the sense reading the book that they where there to perpetuate some sort of male (or female) fantasy at all but rather were just another example of Martin's gritty but realistic world building. They were making the best of what life handed them.

My two cents.

[Alexia]

Oh, well said Miriel. I'm reminded of the 14 year old whore Arya meets; she thinks that the brothel owner (can't recall the name) asks twice as much for her as for any of the other women.

I was reading Seductress a few years ago, don't know if any of the other board ladies have read it. One of the women it covered was a French courtesan (can't remember her name either) from the time period when courtesans were still somewhat socially acceptable in France. Anyway, it was profiled in a very positive way but a hint of this woman's feelings came through in a letter she had written a friend whose daughter wanted to become a courtesan. Basically, she urged her friend not to allow it and made a comment something along the lines of there being no worse fate for a woman.

[Liadin]

I never got the sense reading the book that they where there to perpetuate some sort of male (or female) fantasy at all but rather were just another example of Martin's gritty but realistic world building. They were making the best of what life handed them.

I think this is true, and we've wandered from sexism in ASOIAF to prostitution in fiction in general--I'm not arguing that Chataya's presence makes the books any more or less sexist. Furthermore, I think ASOIAF's success itself refutes HE's claim that if there are whores in a book, they need to be empowered for the book to appeal to women. Plenty of women read the books, and I doubt anyone has ever stopped because they were turned off by Shae's not being empowered enough.

But, HE, I think maybe your broader point is that if you want a book to appeal to women, the main female characters ought to be empowered? That's probably true. Just as, if you want a book to appeal to men, the main male characters ought to be empowered--if they're all slaves/serfs/subservient to the women, you're probably not going to appeal to many guys unless it's a really good book, in which case all bets are off--for both genders. There's nothing wrong with people being turned off by books in which every character with whom they can identify is completely at the mercy of other characters with whom they can't or aren't encouraged to identify. Which is one reason that when we get these medieval stories, they're always either about nobility or about people who gain the same level of power as nobility (the infamous upjumped farmboys) because there's just not much of a market for fiction about oppressed characters.

But are women less likely to read a book if it has a prostitute who gets raped, beaten, and exploited by her pimp? If she's the only female character in the book, maybe. If she's a secondary character like Shae, I highly doubt it. (And honestly, if the only important female character in the book is a whore, I'd be turned off no matter how happy or empowered she might be in her profession.)

[3idcrow]

But, HE, I think maybe your broader point is that if you want a book to appeal to women, the main female characters ought to be empowered? That's probably true. Just as, if you want a book to appeal to men, the main male characters ought to be empowered--if they're all slaves/serfs/subservient to the women, you're probably not going to appeal to many guys unless it's a really good book, in which case all bets are off--for both genders.

Is it really how most of the people read books? I don't mean to be critisizing, just wondering...

I like to see the main character to have an internal conflict, to be torn between conflicting loyalties, to be found in the situation when an unstopable force meets an unmovable object, to be tested and tried ( I guess it explains my SOIAF addiction). The gender of a main character makes no difference to me. Whether he/she is empowered or not is irrelevant. Am I a minority in it?

[Datepalm]

But are women less likely to read a book if it has a prostitute who gets raped, beaten, and exploited by her pimp? If she's the only female character in the book, maybe. If she's a secondary character like Shae, I highly doubt it. (And honestly, if the only important female character in the book is a whore, I'd be turned off no matter how happy or empowered she might be in her profession.)

It seems like a logical weirdness to me, to be honest, that assumes, as HE seems to, that people only care about things that are personal to them in characterizations in books. Only women will be turned off books where all the women are male-fantasy happy hookers. Only black people will be bothered by books filled with cheery, contented slaves. Only gays don't want to read stereotypical and shoddy gay characters, etc, etc.

I can identify with well written male characters perfectly well. I can read and enjoy entire books without a single woman, if theres a good reason for there not to be a single woman. I don't like bad, annoying, unrealistic, depthless characterzation and worldbuilding - whether its happy slaves or happy hookers or token chicks or simply a badly written white guy.

Total change of subject - I went and got the first volume of Dreamsongs yesterday! I haven't read all of it, but a few random observations as regard the thread subject....

- Loneliness seems to be the overarching theme. I have a mild desire to send GRRM a teddy bear and a cup of hot tea. Its not a subject thats so overwhelmingly present in ASOIAF though, certainly not so thickly.

- Goodness, theres just oodles of romance. I think its the main subject of most of the stories I read. Much more than in ASOIAF, really, which has tons of sex but really rather few romances.

- Men in Towers! Isolated men, pining after women, again and again. I find it oddly charming, considering the debates over womens isolation here. It also makes me cut GRRM even more slack and trust hes got something interesting coming with characters like Dany and Sansa and so on.

[Liadin]

Is it really how most of the people read books? I don't mean to be critisizing, just wondering...

I like to see the main character to have an internal conflict, to be torn between conflicting loyalties, to be found in the situation when an unstopable force meets an unmovable object, to be tested and tried ( I guess it explains my SOIAF addiction). The gender of a main character makes no difference to me. Whether he/she is empowered or not is irrelevant. Am I a minority in it?

Honestly, you probably don't notice because nearly every main character you'll come across ever has some amount of agency. It's not something I specifically look for in books, no, because in the kind of fiction I read (contemporary fantasy and historical fiction for the most part) it's pretty much always there. Internal conflict and conflicting loyalties presuppose agency: if a character is unempowered and can't make any meaningful decisions, there's not much to be conflicted about. I think we're using different definitions of empowered: when I say I'd prefer to read about women who are empowered, I'm not talking about LB's "Grrl Power", I'm talking about having a meaningful role in the story, having independent thoughts, making their own decisions rather than letting other people make decisions for them.* I'd be surprised if you liked characters who didn't have those qualities. Maybe I should be talking about "agency" rather than "empowerment."

So, when HE says that many women wouldn't read a book where the only female character is a prostitute who does nothing but be brutalized, he may be right--unless the female readers are identifying with other characters, or the book is just so amazingly written that everyone puts up with it. But really, any character requires some level of empowerment to be interesting. (And I agree with Datepalm that there's nothing stopping women from identifying with male characters, and if there's a really good reason for there to be no women in a book--like, it's set in the trenches in WW1--that's not a barrier to women enjoying it. And obviously, great books trump many of the considerations we've been talking about.)

*It's not just about women either. Hobb's Renegade's Magic drove me nuts because

Nevare was an observer for most of the book. Literally, he was unable to do anything.

I only got through it because there were other good characters in the book who were doing interesting things.

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

Actually, I usually prefer and identify with male characters. Females in fiction either are defined by their romantic interests, or motherly feelings, or they represent caring or ethics, and all these are turn off for me. (One of my fav shows is Oz, for illustration). There are exceptions, and quite a few nowadays, of course.

I'd rather read about abused hookers than happy hookers, although I do not care much for either. In first case, there is educational value, grittiness, and some realism.

One somewhat happy hooker I like is Mrs. Warren. ;)

There is HUUUGE market for "female fantasy" in Russia, fantasy stories aimed specifically for women, and although I do not read this stuff, I know it is filled with powerful women (escaped princesses, witches, magicians, elves, etc) who kick ass and fall in love with dangerous men. Usually these characters are powerful, annoyingly snarky, and I don't remember anything indicating that they had many sexual relationship, usually it is focused on one "love of their life". Occasionally there are no love interests at all. This is more "low brow" pandering to females.