Sexism in ASOIAF?

[nana&crow]

Her husband was a dick, I'll give you that.(although I still like Robert for some reason)

don't get me wrong, I liked Robert a lot and felt heartbroken when he died. the fact that what he likes best in life is warring, drinking and fucking doesn't make him a bad character in my eyes; he's just not very good husband material.

[mormont]

I find it interesting (or disturbing, I haven't decided which yet) that when I started to read AGoT, I hated Jaime, Cersei and Tyrion with a passion. When Tyrion's first POV chapters occured, I started to reconsider his character, but still loathed Jaime and Cersei. When Jaime started to have his own POV chapters, I (again) started to enjoy his character, but still hated Cersei. When Cersei started having her POV chapters, it did nothing for my opinion of her character (except to make me dislike her even more)

I really don't know why this is. GRRM tends to write a POV character pretty (from their own POV) sympathetically, which makes sense given who's telling that part of the story, but Cersei's chapters only serve to further englarge her as an "evil" character (at least IMO). Given that understanding, I would have to say that yes, the way GRRM writes her character at least, it's pretty sexist. Why should her POV chapters only do more to make her an unsympathetic character, when every other POV chapter should serve to "justify" other characters? Cersei doesn't do or think about much in her POV chapters that helps alleviate the dislike that a reader (at least, myself) have built up for her prior to that point, and her character is actually pretty stagnant when it comes to "realization" of her own flaws.

Don't get me wrong, Jaime was still a douche for tossing Bran from the tower in addition to all the other stuff he did prior to that, but at least he made me laugh with some of his dialogue, and is apparently showing a change in his character from what we first saw of him. Cersei just goes from spiteful and conniving in her non-POV chapters, to spiteful, conniving and incompetent in her POV chapters. Its hardly equal treatment when you consider it that way.

Well, first off I would have to say that Cersei's chapters in AFFC aren't the first time a POV character has come across as pathetic, incompetent and unsympathetic. For that, you need to go to Theon's chapters in ACOK. (Although to be fair, some people seem to sympathise with him: I have never been able to.) I have read Theon's chapters many times and never felt that they served to 'justify' him or alleviate dislike of him at all. They actually show him in a rather more unsympathetic light than anything else in the books: they're equal to the Cersei chapters in my view.

Secondly, I've also never understood this bit about how Cersei was 'more interesting' or 'different' before her POV. She never seemed to me to be competent or clever: in fact we have it shown or told to us many times in ACOK and ASOS that she's not, that she's out of her depth and doesn't know it, and that none of the serious players (LF, Tywin, Varys, and even Tyrion) see her as a threat or take her seriously. Her sole real 'success' is in AGOT and even that literally falls into her lap: without sheer luck and the intervention of LF, even Ned would have outmanouevred her. Her cruelty and paranoia? Yes, they're outlined too, although her paranoia is not as developed, perhaps. But with Joff's assassination, it makes sense that would get worse. I do agree that had to be exaggerated with the loss of the five-year gap, but I don't agree it's such bad writing as people are suggesting, nor that there is a significant discontinuity or change of character there.

It's like Ned, 3idcrow. Ned was absolutely horrified by the deaths of Rhaenys and Aegon and for Elia's fate and never paused to think about the Sack of KL. Bran is highborn whereas the child (it was only one baby, Gendry was almost a grown man by the standards of her society) was not.

I think 3idcrow is referring to the twins at Caserly rock. But they were in all likelihood born to a common mother, so your point stands. ;)

[nana&crow]

I now realise I never really commented on the initial topic of this thread, i.e. "sexism in ASOIAF?"

first of all medieval society was sexist by definition (society IS still sexist nowadays for that matter) and any other interpretation would not be realistic or consistent. so from an inside pov it is merely coherent with the historical moment it portrays, we may like it or not, but that's how things were.

even a global interpretation does not evidence any misogyny on GRRM's part: there is a strong presence of female characters, with a wide range of personalities and roles of importance - there are strong and independent women as well as shallow and weak ones, just as it should be. as a female reader I find GRRM's characters satisfactory and charismatic in many cases - no complaints here.

other books like LOTR (and I'm a big fan of Tolkien since I was 9) have nearly no female characters and their importance in the overall story is very little; Narnia could also be considered sexist, but of course both books were written a long time ago and it makes no sense to point it out.

on another note, I don't think an author's personal beliefs necessarily have to find their way into his writing and in this respect I don't see hatred of women on GRRM's part.

from a happy female reader

[Alexia]

I think 3idcrow is referring to the twins at Caserly rock. But they were in all likelihood born to a common mother, so your point stands. ;)

Rumors. Ned says himself that tales like that are told of every great lord in the land and Cersei never thinks of it. Aren't there rumors floating around that Ned killed Ashara and took Jon away from her?

[Datepalm]

Rumors. Ned says himself that tales like that are told of every great lord in the land and Cersei never thinks of it. Aren't there rumors floating around that Ned killed Ashara and took Jon away from her?

IIRC Varys confirms this one though.

[Alexia]

IIRC Varys confirms this one though.

Varys said it was a rumor, IIRC. He also told Ned that Ser Hugh was the one who killed Jon Arryn.

There's as much evidence for this as there is for the notion that Cersei sent Ser Mandon to kill Tyrion and I think most people don't believe that she did.

[Mad Monkey]

I think that Ser Mandon was a close friend of Vardis Egan, the elderly knight that Tyrion and Bronn bragged about killing during Tyrion's trial in the Vale and might have lashed out in revenge.

[DizoakiusMaximus]

I think that Ser Mandon was a close friend of Vardis Egan, the elderly knight that Tyrion and Bronn bragged about killing during Tyrion's trial in the Vale and might have lashed out in revenge.

Huh. Really?

I figured Cersei did it, like Tyrion thought. It's probably naive of me to to think that, but I didn't see anyone else being able to get to a member of the Kingsguard in the way that Cersei could.

[Mad Monkey]

It's not naive of you to think that. Cersei is certainly a reasonable suspect. However, Bronn was awfully dickish about it when he brought him the sad news:

He made himself smile. “Ser Mandon, you have not met my companions. This is Timett son of Timett, a red hand of the Burned Men. And this is Bronn. Perchance you recall Ser Vardis Egen, who was captain of Lord Arryn’s household guard?”

“I know the man.” Ser Mandon’s eyes were pale grey, oddly flat and lifeless.

“Knew,” Bronn corrected with a thin smile.

Ser Mandon did not deign to show that he had heard that.

I would have tried to slit his throat too.

[Miriel]

Littlefinger sent Ser Mandon.

It is known ;)

[Dreadwolf]

I think that Ser Mandon was a close friend of Vardis Egan, the elderly knight that Tyrion and Bronn bragged about killing during Tyrion's trial in the Vale and might have lashed out in revenge.

I liked this hypothesis for its actually original and excentric.

Anyway it looks to me not very likely.

While Ser Mandon character was vaguely described in the story IIRC Tyrion recollected that Jaime someone said that He was most dangerous of the KG for his eyes expressed nothing. And we have his obviously un-knightly behavior following Joffrey orders for mistreating Sansa). Anyway from what we see he was hardly capable of creating and maintaining a kind of deep friendship relationships. (As deep as to make him plot the killing out of revenge). Ser Vardis Egen at least left an impression of an honorable and dutiful man. I*d agree that it is not necessary if one is capable to kill out of love then from it follows that he is relatively honorable/ worthy of some respect person. However Ser Egen died that day in a lawful and honest combat when Tyrion was just pleading for his right of ToC. It was fair fight and if we must look for the real culprit who was beyond Ser Vardis Egen Death I think Lysa Aryn would be the most appropriate nomination. Or Bron but why Tyrion? There is at least a theoretical possibility that Mandon Moore and Vardis Egen had a relationship beyond the usual man to man friendship and camaraderie. But I still don*t think that Mandon was capable of love at all. Although a kind of selfish, revengeful love may be considered in his case.

One detail I can’t remember very well however is Who was the KG Tyrion humiliated in the face of the King Joffrey, Sansa, Hound and the rest of KG: Meryn Trant or Mandon Moore?

If it was the latter – that IMO may be a reason quite acceptable for a vile and mean creature (as in my opinion of Ser Mandon was) to attempt killing Tyrion. And if LF or Cersei had somehow additionally stimulated him towards that then it should be even more plausible.

[Aubrem]

Littlefinger sent Ser Mandon.

It is known ;)

Ha. "It is known" now pops up in my way too often. Damn books.

Littlefinger is my guess too except that I don't know why Ser Mandon would do it. LF had something on him? Cersei is the obvious person but narratively it's just too soon for her to go trying to kill her brother and there'd be more fallout after the attempt. I suppose it might have been Joffrey himself telling Ser Mandon what to do.

It's one of the big mysteries that I'm going to keep my eyes open for on my reread. Those Kingsguard knights all blurred together on my first reading - I couldn't tell one from another.

[dolorouseddwasright]

Or Ser Mandon could have had a personal desire to kill Tyrion and figured the heat of battle an opportune time to act on that desire. If I were in the midst of a battle and had someone I hated nearby I might find it hard to resist the urge to kill him and claim it happened at the hands of the enemy.

[Mad Monkey]

Or Ser Mandon could have had a personal desire to kill Tyrion and figured the heat of battle an opportune time to act on that desire. If I were in the midst of a battle and had someone I hated nearby I might find it hard to resist the urge to kill him and claim it happened at the hands of the enemy.

Ser Mandon could have easily heard about the details of how Tyrion and Bronn engineered his friend Vardis Egan's death. His house, the House of Moore, is sworn directly to Arryn and it is quite possible that he keeps in contact with his household back in the Vale of Arryn.

Ser Vardis Egen at least left an impression of an honorable and dutiful man. I*d agree that it is not necessary if one is capable to kill out of love then from it follows that he is relatively honorable/ worthy of some respect person

Is it possible that Ser Mandon also aspires (or once aspired) to honor and nobility? I have no idea what he was like when he first arrived in the Kingsguard; he could have been a genuinely hard-working and talented knight, who sought to do his duty to the Crown and discharge his duties as a knight, only to find himself thrust blindly into a hornet's nest of corruption, incest, and murder.

After all, we have seen this arc play out before, with Jaime. Jaime Lannister, a preternaturally skilled warrior and a big believer in knightly ideals, had to stand by and guard a king who murdered his vassals and brutally raped his wife on a semi-regular basis. Eventually, seeing these things -- all at odds with what he saw as the cultural ideal -- twisted him into the kind of person who throws children from towers. It's not too much of a leap for Ser Mandon (who guarded King Robert, a man who -- like Aerys -- often abused his wife Cersei) to eventually grow bitter and contemptuous of both the noble family that he shielded and was, in a sense, complicit in the crimes. Of.

Naturally, Mandon is not Jaime. He's not going to flip out and decapitate Robert or Joffrey in the middle of the throne room. Mandon instead just went dead inside, protecting his ego from the horrors he has to witness and participate in on a daily basis by assuming a guise of callous disregard. But all this time he was waiting, his anger was seething. And when Tyrion and Bronn showed up at King's Landing -- his house -- to brag about how they killed his friend and mentor (at least, that's how he saw it!), that was when he resolved to act.

[Alexia]

Littlefinger sent Ser Mandon.

I think it was LF too. Tyrion knew about LF trying to frame him and he was angry about being tricked over the Robert/Myrcella marriage. I did think it was Cersei though, until I read her POV.

[Dreadwolf]

And when Tyrion and Bronn showed up at King's Landing -- his house -- to brag about how they killed his friend and mentor (at least, that's how he saw it!), that was when he resolved to act.

yes - It is good catch (though we can only speculate).

And while We know that Ser Mandon had no friends in KL. (Bron and Varys did some reserches - we can only guess what was the case in his youth at the Vale.)

And we know for sure that Mandon Moore came in KL with Lord Jon Arryn.

After all it*s known that:

Ser Vardis was killed in a judicial duel as he championed Lady Lysa against the sellsword-champion of Tyrion Lannister, who was accused of the murder of Lord Jon.

He could have been even takin a revenge for his beloved Lord of the Vale.

(And if we want to still involve LF the almighty - the latter could have succeeded somehow in salting Ser Mandon*s suspicions about Tyrion*s Role even more.)

By all menas Tyrion was no one*s favotite in KL. All hated him for one or other good or bad reasons.

[BrosBeforeSnows]

RE: The discussion of happy prostitutes and which gender this is meant to appeal to: Am I meant to take the "some women buy books featuring happy whores" as "yes, this does constitute wish-fulfillment fantasy for real women"? Because I buy GRRM's books, just not for the prostitution. And I still think the happy whore is a predominantly male fantasy.

I don't know if "happy whore" is the right word for it, but I can tell you that in pre-Christian Europe, some prostitutes were able to become incredibly wealthy by fucking for money (just as some "call-girls" do today). There are accounts of hookers during Caesar's time, for example, who were richer than Senators, and members of the patrician class. They weren't nearly so well-respected (especially given Roman machismo), but they did have much more power than the average (wealthy) woman. Wealth and power obviously don't equal happiness, but they certainly help.

And, I think we are looking at this issue from a distinctly Western, Judeo-Christian perspective. Theoretically, if you grew up in a society/culture/religion in which sex was treated as a religious experience, and promiscuity was encouraged, you might not find the "happy hooker" phenomenon to be so hard to believe. For example, there are tribes in Africa and Asia that have very different ideas about sex and monogamy than Westerners do. Westerners often find this shocking regardless of whether they're religious or not, due to our preconceived notions about marriage, and "soul-mates", and the like. Monogamy is deeply engrained in our psyches, but it's not necessarily a belief that is universally shared amongst human populations.

And I think Martin tried to illustrate both of these points in the series. We see rich and powerful prostitutes in Braavos, and whores who fuck religiously in King's Landing (i.e. Chataya and her daughter, Alayaya, from the Summer Islands), and both of those examples match up pretty well with history. For example, Braavos is basically equivalent to Venice (i.e. Venice = Italy = Rome), and the Summer Islands are parallel to Africa, so I think GRRM was being quite accurate, historically, in that respect.

But again, I think the "happy hooker" label is obviously a gross over-simplification, but I don't think it's strictly a male fantasy either. There is a spectrum, and clearly, an incredibly wealthy call-girl who has the ability to pick clients of her choosing is going to be better off than the desperately poor hooker who fucks anyone she can wherever she can.

Edit: And let's face it, there are some people out there, male and female, who just like to fuck. Hence the porn industry.

On the other hand, there's a biological aspect to it as well. When women breastfeed and orgasm, they release a hormone in their brain called oxytocin. This chemical causes them to develop a deep psychological bond with baby and/or lover (i.e. pair-bonding). Men do not have this.

Plus, there is something called the "biological imperative". Men have a certain need to "spread their seed", because, theoretically, a man could have sex with 100 women and have 100 children. Conversely, a woman could have sex with 100 men and still only have 1 child. So, in that respect, there is no biological incentive for women to be promiscuous, other than the sheer pleasure they feel from the act itself.

[Woman of War]

@BrosBeforeSnows:

Although there might be some truths to face in your post I would never choose the porn industry as an example of "like to fuck". I can only talk about Europe, but here it is common that young women are either directly bought from poorer families in (south)-east) Europe, bribed away as payment for whatever deals with criminal structures gone wrong, or, and that is more often the case, lured to the relatively rich cities like Paris or Berlin with the promise of a job as au pair, nanny and very often a model career. No violence needed so far.

And in no time they owe money to their "business partners", enormous sums for transport to, say, Germany, for housing with appropriate business rooms and forged papers that allow them to stay while their own papers that allow them to move freely are taken from them.

And those young women have to work in the porn industry or in prostitution for years and years but somehow the pile of debts never gets lower....... escaping or going to the police would endanger these families back home or get the women killed. So every john who buys a prostitute under those circumstances is an accomplice to these criminal structures, even buying porn movies makes a person take part.

This is one side - and now to some other points in your arguing.

There are female students who can earn in five nights a month more than enough for financing their studies by prostitution, the alternative would be 30 hours a week at Aldi, bullied around by an idiot of a boss. Would I seriously tell said student that Aldi is more dignified? An intelligent woman should know about the risks of prostitution and can make her own decisions. Same counts for porn industry, not every woman is forced, some choose that job, no matter if you or me or whoever agrees with that choice. Of course, apart from outright violence, there are those borderline cases, like the threat of immigration laws not leaving other jobs open to them, the refusal of other employment possibilities that make women turn to prostitution if they wish to stay in our rich part of the world. And their families back home are really in need of the money.

And some may even like the thrill, the insight and, yes, power they get from being an independent sex worker, like so many other power junkies who prefer living dangerously in any job.

So arguing that prostitution is generally somewhat of inferior morality is indeed a reflection of judeo-christian AND islamic prejudices against sexuality, especially active female sexuality. The Virgin and Mother vs Whore dichtonomy is needed to keep every woman in line with male expectations. And if women line up with conservative or fundamentalist men (of whatever ideology) to express their righteous moral disgust against "prostitution, pornography and sexual liberation" they do the job of supporting patriarchial structures.

So the problem with the sex business is not "morality", this is a construction to demean and to separate women into "bad" or the "good" ones, weakening them politically. The problem, in RL like in Westeros or Essos, are violent structures that force people, exploit them, leave them without choice. Forcing someone into sex slavery is even more cruel than other forced structures because sexual contacts come much closer to physical and mental integrity than e.g.forced labour.

And there is the huge worldwide market of child sex, concerning boys as well as girls, the most disgusting business imaginable, even the random internet watcher in that case should know that he or she is actively taking part in horrible crimes.

But this means as well that not every paid sexual contact is criminal or even wrong, not every john has a morality problem as long as he (or she) is conscious and open for seeing through structures. And if someone gets a problem at home for cheating or spending too much money, that is definitely not the business of the sex worker. And by now there is pornography for women that has been made out of free choice and with pleasure - and that is something wonderful. Only it should not be used to deny the in their vast majority oppressive structures in porn and paid sex.

Women who fight those structures must always be aware not to be used for campaigns against sexual freedom, for a new puritanism, for religious fundamentalism all over the world etc. Divide and conquer, the "good women" against the "whores" . Where do Catholics, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists meet? In denying development aid to those organisations who teach contraception and protection from AIDS, incredible hypocrisy.

SEX IS GOOD :), but the fairy tale about men who just have to be promiscous reduces them to gorillas, honestly there is something like decisions and the debate about the biologically determined lack of free will is not what you should present to your girlfriend at home, she'd take you for an idiot. The main sexual organ is between your ears, that counts for both sexes.

[Lexy Boleyn]

Still, he views prostitutes in such an objectified way. I was especially put off by his musing, "Can a whore ever truly love anyone?" or something along that line. Sure, a whore probably isn't going to fall in love with one of her clients, but he's not even considering the possibility that she might have a life outside of that--there's nothing to stop her loving her children, siblings, parents, friends, etc. There's not even anything to stop her falling in love with a man.... it's just not going to be Tyrion. I would expect whores to place a premium on men who actually prioritize the woman's pleasure, although I have no evidence to back that up.

About whores falling in love with clients, it's not usual but not unseen: just imagine a girl used to be seen as just a hot pleasure object, when one man is kind, try to make jokes, to be kind, to care, even if it's just to be polite or any other reason, she can love him or believe she loves him just because he's different. There's a lot of stories and testimonies about Japanese Oirans, high class courtesans (they were seen as more "prostitutes" than geishas since the sex took a greater place in what was asked of them) who felt in love with clients and were heartbroken when being abandonned. The main themes are an Oiran cutting her finger to offer it as a love token or getting into catfight because her lover/client spent the night with another ( see the manga and movie Sakuran about it). In one of her novel taking place in a brothel, Sawako Ariyoshi explains that all the girls have a special client/lover, just to feel more human and less cattle, to have the illusion of choosing at last

[Hear Us Roar]

Women can't really do much in this universe and the same goes for women of this time period.

I am surprised most people expect what are basically medieval women to be 21st century feminist.

In these societies women have their place and they have no choice in it, same with the men.

Look at Sam, he would kill to be in his sisters and live a leisurely life singing shoes and Cersci would kill for the same.