Tyrion and Shae—15 signs of an abusive relationship

[ishmael]

What, just like in a marriage there can be no rape. Did Tyrion draw up a contract with Shae? Did she sign anything? Did you see her getting take home pay? Did Shae have any say in the matter at all? Oh wait, I forget, she was a whore, meaning less than human, meaning she "only knew how to please".

Actually they did have a contract. He told her what he was willing to pay and what he expected to receive in exchange. She had the option of agreeing to the terms he offered or walking away. She accepted the terms and stayed. Since she probably could not read, putting it in writing would have been a pointless endevor. Shae had plenty of say in the arrangement. She did not offer any counter stipulations and agreed to the terms as Tyrion presented them. She had a choice, and took the option that Tyrion offered.

[mormont]

She had a choice, and took the option that Tyrion offered.

So much for book 1. What happened after that?

[Lummel]

Yes, doesn't everyone read dystopian feminist literature from time to time? I disagree that she had "no agency or choice." In the context of the book, she could have chosen to be unwoman, but a handmaid is a much better life (aside from having to wear the horse-blinder thing...and fucking old men).

So would it be fair to summerise your opinion that if society forces you to choice one of two (or three if one includes death) equally unpleasant alternatives you can be assumed to be a willing participant?

Perhaps you can appreciate why others may not share your perspective?

Well, yeah. I wasn't arguing that Tyrion is a saint. I just disagree with the people who portray Shae as a helpless victim and Tyrion as a complete monster for killing her. Shae isn't an especially good person, and I don't think Tyrion is an especially horrible person for taking his revenge on her.

Personally the word overkill leaps to mind. The extremity of his reaction is very telling about Tyrion, its show him to be a true Lannister and a Lannister always pays their debts.

Tyrion and Shae do not have a 'relationship'. They have a contract.

Tyrion provides her with a very high standard of living in exchange for sex, false affection and following his rules. She agrees. She could have said no and refused to accept the terms if she was not willing to fulfill them. They may be 'abusive' from a MODERN viewpoint, in the context of a real emotional relationship, but since there is no romantic relationship, this moral judgement does not apply.

The contract is an interesting notion. We all engage in contracts and contract law has to assume the fantastical notion that the parties who contract are equal, but in practise we observe that there can be severe power imbalances as in this case.

Of course Shae could have said no. She had just been removed after threats of violence from her previous employer and was introduced to the son of one of the most powerful men in Westeros, a man who incidently had the owner of the Inn at the crossroads publicly hanged for having the temerity to allow the abduction of said son inside her Inn, and is made an offer. Of course she could have said no. Personally I can't imagine that she would take that risk - since after all she is too low born to wake up with a horse's head beside her in her non-existant bed.

[ishmael]

Are you being serious?

I certainly don't hate Tyrion. He's an interesting, engaging and perceptive (except in regard to himself) character. But is he a good man - no almost certainly not. The only person that he loves was Jaime and we see how he treats him.

But these are threats that only exist because of the nature of the relationship that Tyrion imposes on Shae and that are threatening to Tyrion because he fears disclosure - which is all about his reputation not Shae's well being.

If all that Tyrion wanted was sex, there would never have been a problem. He creates a difficulty for himself because he wants to have this exclusive and secretive relationship with a prostitute and the point there is unlike marriage, even Westerosi marriage, he can have absolute control in that relationship and have Shae roll play Tysha.

Tyrion does not care about his reputation as far as it being discovered that he is involved with a prostitute. Everyone knows that if they cannot find him, he is with the whores. The issue is that he wants something that is only his, but he knows that if it gets back to his father that the thing he possesses is a whore, that she will be taken away from him. He does not believe that he can have a legitimate relationship with a woman, because the last time he believed he did, she turned out to be a whore and was taken away from him. Now he just takes the pretense out of the equation that it is an actual relationship. Shae is still just a whore, but she is "his" whore and that is what he wants. It also helps that he can secretely rub it in his fathers face that he keeps a whore, even if Tywin doesn't know he is keeping the whore. Once Tywin does know, the gig is up and Tyrion really doesn't want Shae punished for his little game with his father.

[ishmael]

So much for book 1. What happened after that?

I don't really understand. The agreement remained in effect until one of them altered it. She was much better off with Tyrion than she would have been on her own in KL, so she stayed. When Tyrion could no longer provide for her, once he was accused, she moved to the next offer on the table that provided her with the most stability and safety. Provide testimony against him in exchange for what appears to be a similar arrangement with Tywin. She satifies his needs. She stays alive and has a steady compensation package.

[James Arryn]

Wow. Yeah... Cersei's AFFC chapters have always struck me as GRRM trying to take every possible excuse or admirable quality that cersei could possibly be said to have and eliminating it. As one person put it, "he doesn't want us to think she's strong, he doesn't want us to think she's been victimized, he doesn't want us to think she's badass, he doesn't want us to think she's smart, he doesn’t even want us to think she's cool."

For instance, Perhaps Cersei's malevolence comes from being an abused woman? Nope, we learn in AFFC-- she's been a murderous sociopath from the age of ten. Perhaps Cersei's lust for power is, in a way, admirable, being a woman who wants something more? No, as we learn, once again, in AFFC, it is sick, evil, and unnatural, and obvious evidence that she want's male genitals. Perhaps Cersei, wanting more from life, is something of a feminist? Nope, Cersei loathes and persecutes women more than any man ever could, literally throwing their bodies to a male torturer for sadistic dissection. Perhaps her challenging the patriarchy and choosing the father of her own children was a positive thing, and means she supports these rights for women? No, it must mean that she loathes and wants to sadistically persecute women for making the same sexual discretions that she has (even when they are totally innocent, unlike her dirty, dirty self.)

Maybe her using sex to get ahead is at least in part due to the restrictions of her society? Nope, it is all because she is a dirty, dirty, stupid whore. Maybe she is justly pissed because her society has held her back due to her gender? No, she is, in fact, a spoilt bitch of privilege whose gotten everything she’s wanted, and whines that she’s held back by her gender when really she’s just held back by her incompetence. Maybe she’d be better if men weren’t holding her back? Nope—in fact, it was the men holding her back that were saving her (and Westeros) all along. Because when a woman rules who does not realize that men are naturally wiser and must be differed to for all important decisions, the shit is gonna hit the fan.

Cersei is very much like the standard trope of the ambitious bitch—ambitious, hard, beautiful, ruthless, evil; actually a very sexist trope because the woman in question is generally demonized for her ambition and made to look evil for it. However, generally, such women are either portrayed as victims broken hearted by some thing in their past, or, in recent times, portrayed with a sort of begrudging admiration at their pure drive and strange strength, and willingness to go after what they want.

What is different about Cersei is how determined GRRM seems to be to portray her as admirable in no way whatsoever. Rather than the strong, ambitious, brilliant woman she is a weak, idiotic, ambitious woman, headed for self-destruction pronto. (The audience is encouraged to root for this in a way I’ve honestly never seen before.) And her ambition for power in and of itself is key to her stupidity—smart women know better, and only wish to manipulate behind the scenes when the men in question are too stupid to rule correctly. Cersei’s desire to rule in her own right is proof of unnaturalness, her belief that she knows better than the men around he is proof of blatant stupidity.

There is also more focus on Cersei’s sexual behavior than I’ve ever seen with this archetype or in any other variation of this trope—GRRM’s attention to, and demonization of Cersei’s sexual behavior in AFFC and, to a lesser extent, in earlier novels, verges on the obsessive. Furthermore, there is a pure condemnation of Cersei’s behavior—in other cases; I’ve seen this archetype being sexually voracious or using sex to get ahead to prove her utter ruthlessness. However, GRRM portrays this as so key to her characterization—and demonization—and so degradingly defines her by it that it is truly mind boggling at times.

There is also a weird thing with Cersei where GRRM encourages readers to root for her to be humiliated on a specifically sexual level that is disturbing. The two times he displays anything resembling real pity for her at length is when she’s a helpless sexualized victim; yet GRRM portrays Tyrion and Jaime’s thoughts that Cersei is a whore as funny, just, awesome, and true.

Furthermore, it is constantly implied that she is “Old and used.” I never noticed GRRM implying Tyrion is old or used in any fashion by the countless whores he’s slept with. Oh well. I guess it’s different for guys. Which is why, I guess, GRRM portrays Cersei using sex to get ahead as unambiguously evil, nasty, and slutty, while he portrays Tyrion raping bed slaves as technically wrong but the behavior of a tragically misguided and emotionally scarred man.

Even if you accept your (imo distorted) view if the evolution of Cersei's character, why on earth do you determine that that is GGRM sending a message about gender?

Several characters have had their positive qualities stripped away. Several characters have had POVs whose insight lessened them as sympathetic people. He is constantly building up a character to be A when first revealed, and B after ongoing a story arc.

Victarion, who initially came off as loyal, brave, skilled etc. is then revealed more and more as a stubborn, stupid, shallow, jealous, bitter and borderline sociopath. Is that GRRM sending us a message about men? Sailors?

Tyrion, who initially was just about the most sympathetic POV character has then gone on to be seen as a murderer, rambling self-pitying drunk, kinslayer, and generally fucked up individual. GRRM showing us how even victimized men are capable of exceptionally unforgivable actions for their own twisted revenge? Dwarves?

Stannis is originally presented as an unlikable but entirely honorable man...until he is shown repeatedly making extreme and hypocritical moral exceptions when it suits his own interest, killing (or taking part in) his own brother, a man he admitted was brave and honorable and did nothing but stand in his way, and (presumably) cheat on his wife. Is this more of GRRM's agenda towards marginalizing the male sex by deconstructing positive archetypes? Or showing how men and power can't mix, as men just don't have the gender-specific tools for the job?

Robb, initially a heroic figure, manages to lose his kingdom, honor and life by virtue of poor decisions and immature prioritization. Maybe men just aren't up to this whole leadership thing?

Jorah Mormont...from strong, reliable father-figure to pathetic, sexually needy traitor and informer...more comment on the gender?

Theon...originally a character of some sympathy and redeeming traits, shown to be disloyal, weak, easily manipulated by women, mirderous, callous, insecure and incompetent, whose only redemption comes from being probably the most pathetic and despised character in the books. GRRM sure seems to have an agenda when it comes to men, no?

Even the positive male characters have gender-specific fatal flaws. Poor Ned...brave, stoic, loyal old fashioned man's man...just not up to scratch in the head department, easily outwitted by Cersei and responsible for the downfall of his house and king/best friend. If only he had been as wise as Cersei...

Speaking of his best friend...we are introduced to him as a lovable boisterous conqueror who needs an honorable man at his side. Then gradually we are shown that he has become dissipated, weak, abusive, drunk, irresponsible, a terrible husband and possibly worse father, and a man who repeatedly turns his back on the best friend he asked to help him.

And I have only begun to scratch the surface here...VIserys, never lovable, but nowhere near as detestable, pathetic and lick-spittle mad as he ends up, being laughed at by reader and Dothraki dying a horrible death. Joffrey constantly goes from bad to worse, until he in entertainingly shown murdered while in the process of yet another act of blatant cruelty, causing readers much delight. Etc. Etc.

Wow, when you add it all up, I think GRRM has serious issues with men.

Or...wait...could it be that GRRM just has a thing for deconstructing characters to challenge precepts and diminishing archetypes to petty humans with petty human frailties, and gender has nothing whatsoever to do with it?

Unless they're women, of course, in which case it is obviously some sort of convoluted long-term master plan to show the liabilities of the 'lesser' sex.

Seriously, this is getting to be a bit much.

[Lizaveta Martell]

The fact that Shae lied is unmoving to me. We all know how charming (meaning threatening and evil) Tywin Lannister can be, especially to women who sleep with his son. I don't know if it's fair to say that she perjured herself, especially given the fact she just lost her only employment with no savings put away. Between the possible physical danger and the risk of starving, I wouldn't exactly blame Shae for lying.

Additionally, it's not like Tyrion went on a rampage killing everyone who lied at his trial or even was upset by the lies. The big emotional punch was Shae's testimony. That was what upset him, far and away more than anyone else. Why would this be if he didn't create a delusion of a relationship and believe in it. Putting that sort of emotional expectation on someone who has zero interest in you as a person is pretty much a recipe for weird, stalker level abuse. Someone earlier made a comparison to a baker. Shae thinks she's a baker. Tyrion is like a stalker who believes his baker should love him because he buys her bread.

[Thunderfist]

The fact that Shae lied is unmoving to me. We all know how charming (meaning threatening and evil) Tywin Lannister can be, especially to women who sleep with his son. I don't know if it's fair to say that she perjured herself, especially given the fact she just lost her only employment with no savings put away. Between the possible physical danger and the risk of starving, I wouldn't exactly blame Shae for lying.

Additionally, it's not like Tyrion went on a rampage killing everyone who lied at his trial or even was upset by the lies. The big emotional punch was Shae's testimony. That was what upset him, far and away more than anyone else. Why would this be if he didn't create a delusion of a relationship and believe in it. Putting that sort of emotional expectation on someone who has zero interest in you as a person is pretty much a recipe for weird, stalker level abuse. Someone earlier made a comparison to a baker. Shae thinks she's a baker. Tyrion is like a stalker who believes his baker should love him because he buys her bread.

Tyrion had been found guilty of murdering the king, he was an escaped convict and a crippled dwarf with limited martial powers, how do you see him going about killing everyone who lied at his trial? He killed the person he happened to find in his fathers bed, had he found Pycelle or any of the Kettleblacks naked in Tywin Lannisters bed, he would probably have done his best to kill them.

There is no single reason why he chose to kill Shae, in fact you can make a long list of reasons

He killed her because she could´ve warned the guards outside Tywins door

... because he felt that she had betrayed him

... because he was jealous of his father

... because Shae commited attempted murder by giving false testimony while he was on trial for his life

... because he had some sort of loving emotions towards his "imaginary" girlfriend

... because Shae was stupid enough to use the "My Giant of Lannister"-line when she should have called for help

... because he had been mocked and ridiculed his entire life

... and so on

This issue is really complicated and it has so many layers that it´s impossible to say that someone is guilty and someone is innocent. Tyrion and Shae both did good things and bad things, to others and against eachother. They share the blame in how everything turned out.

[Prince Alexander]

Even if you accept your (imo distorted) view if the evolution of Cersei's character, why on earth do you determine that that is GGRM sending a message about gender?

Several characters have had their positive qualities stripped away. Several characters have had POVs whose insight lessened them as sympathetic people. He is constantly building up a character to be A when first revealed, and B after ongoing a story arc.

Victarion, who initially came off as loyal, brave, skilled etc. is then revealed more and more as a stubborn, stupid, shallow, jealous, bitter and borderline sociopath. Is that GRRM sending us a message about men? Sailors?

Tyrion, who initially was just about the most sympathetic POV character has then gone on to be seen as a murderer, rambling self-pitying drunk, kinslayer, and generally fucked up individual. GRRM showing us how even victimized men are capable of exceptionally unforgivable actions for their own twisted revenge? Dwarves?

Stannis is originally presented as an unlikable but entirely honorable man...until he is shown repeatedly making extreme and hypocritical moral exceptions when it suits his own interest, killing (or taking part in) his own brother, a man he admitted was brave and honorable and did nothing but stand in his way, and (presumably) cheat on his wife. Is this more of GRRM's agenda towards marginalizing the male sex by deconstructing positive archetypes? Or showing how men and power can't mix, as men just don't have the gender-specific tools for the job?

Robb, initially a heroic figure, manages to lose his kingdom, honor and life by virtue of poor decisions and immature prioritization. Maybe men just aren't up to this whole leadership thing?

Jorah Mormont...from strong, reliable father-figure to pathetic, sexually needy traitor and informer...more comment on the gender?

Theon...originally a character of some sympathy and redeeming traits, shown to be disloyal, weak, easily manipulated by women, mirderous, callous, insecure and incompetent, whose only redemption comes from being probably the most pathetic and despised character in the books. GRRM sure seems to have an agenda when it comes to men, no?

Even the positive male characters have gender-specific fatal flaws. Poor Ned...brave, stoic, loyal old fashioned man's man...just not up to scratch in the head department, easily outwitted by Cersei and responsible for the downfall of his house and king/best friend. If only he had been as wise as Cersei...

Speaking of his best friend...we are introduced to him as a lovable boisterous conqueror who needs an honorable man at his side. Then gradually we are shown that he has become dissipated, weak, abusive, drunk, irresponsible, a terrible husband and possibly worse father, and a man who repeatedly turns his back on the best friend he asked to help him.

And I have only begun to scratch the surface here...VIserys, never lovable, but nowhere near as detestable, pathetic and lick-spittle mad as he ends up, being laughed at by reader and Dothraki dying a horrible death. Joffrey constantly goes from bad to worse, until he in entertainingly shown murdered while in the process of yet another act of blatant cruelty, causing readers much delight. Etc. Etc.

Wow, when you add it all up, I think GRRM has serious issues with men.

Or...wait...could it be that GRRM just has a thing for deconstructing characters to challenge precepts and diminishing archetypes to petty humans with petty human frailties, and gender has nothing whatsoever to do with it?

Unless they're women, of course, in which case it is obviously some sort of convoluted long-term master plan to show the liabilities of the 'lesser' sex.

Seriously, this is getting to be a bit much.

There is no doubt that GRRM presents the notion that everyone has a dark side to them. The problem isn't with GRRM. The problem is with readers who cheer on Tyrion or Sandor or Robert for being lovable/beautifully tragic badassess, when in fact they are are pretty fucking horrible people.

[Kalbear]

I don't think GRRM decided to change cersei; I think he was horrified in the notion that people were rooting for her and wanted to make his intentions about who she was and what her role was absolutely clear.

I just think he missed a huge opportunity for a really amazing female positive character.

I also think the show is fixing that hugely.

[Thunderfist]

There is no doubt that GRRM presents the notion that everyone has a dark side to them. The problem isn't with GRRM. The problem is with readers who cheer on Tyrion or Sandor or Robert for being lovable/beautifully tragic badassess, when in fact they are are pretty fucking horrible people.

So you complain about readers who only see positive things about characters like Tyrion, Sandor and Robert while you describe all of them as "pretty fucking horrible people" without any regards to complexity or nuance? So your opinion is that as long as people share your wievs, it´s ok to see a character only from one point of wiev without any thoughts or consideration about why they have turned out a certain way.

[Thunderfist]

I don't think GRRM decided to change cersei; I think he was horrified in the notion that people were rooting for her and wanted to make his intentions about who she was and what her role was absolutely clear.

I just think he missed a huge opportunity for a really amazing female positive character.

I also think the show is fixing that hugely.

Do you have any evidence that GRRM actually changed everything about Cersei based on a comment from a fan? It just sounds a bit weird that any writer would do that. If it´s that easy to change the novels I want to add some suggestions before GRRM is done with the series.

[mormont]

I don't really understand. The agreement remained in effect until one of them altered it.

Or until the circumstances changed, as they did. Because this wasn't a 'contract', it was, y'know, life. And in life, things change. Over time, Shae's circumstances change and Tyrion has more and more control over her. And, although he justifies it as out of concern for her safety, the net efect is that Shae has less and less choice about becoming more and more dependent on Tyrion as the situation changes: and Tyrion pushes her into that.

He thinks, from time to time, of ways in which he could make her safer without leaving her so dependent on him - sending her from KL, or marrying her to Ser Tallad, for example - but he does nothing about them, explicitly because he selfishly doesn't want to be separated from her. (Note that these are things that Shae largely lacks the resources to do on her own: she could have pawned her jewels to get out of KL at an early stage, I suppose, but she was being watched by guards in Tyrion's employ.)

Now you can argue that Shae shows few signed of wanting to get away from Tyrion, I suppose, but the point is that the 'arrangement' she and Tyrion had changed over time, to one where Tyrion had more and more of the power: and it's naive to pretend that it didn't.

[James Arryn]

Most people, actually. People starting to actually criticize Tyrion for things he's done is fairly newfound.

Nope, the vitriolic Shae hatred is incredibly widespread. And no, never have I heard any arguments against Gregor Clegane expressing the pure depths of personal hatred and rage that I have with Shae.

Okay, so you're citing your subjective opinion as objective fact. Please forgive me if I suggest that even a small sampling of your posts shows an incredible propensity to see a single recurring theme in almost any situation, and as such I don't take your opinion on what is factual about how women vs. men are subject to 'depths of personal rage', etc.

For example yesterday, in a thread having nothing whatsoever to do with male/female interaction, you answered the 'There are no men like me, just me' question with a summary of Jaime's character which included 9 characteristics...the last 4 or 5 being directly related to his treatment of women. I think this is your soap box, so you will please forgive me if I don't think you see things as they are when standing on it.

As for the idea that these boards are full of unchecked misandry-- well, I'm not sure what to do with that, since you sort of toss it out there half seriously, then let it go...trying to make a point about.. what, exactly? You have the tendency to pull out straw man arguments, but they are generally ill supported and ill thought out.

Well, if you thought that was strawman, I could see how you would conclude what you did; it was irony.

You very seldom bother to put any real thought into them or take them to their logical conclusion, either.

Lol. Is that so? Not something I've ever been accused of before.

The Shae hatred is far deeper and more vitriolic than the hatred I've ever heard for any male in this series.

What's your rubric for this?

The only one who comes close is Ramsay Bolton, and that Ramsay the mass rapist, murder, mutilator, and sadist should be considered in the same category as Shae the prostitute who perjured one client is... interesting. To say the least.

That you see them as equally despised it interesting, too.

I'd say if Cersei is guilty of abuse with Lancel, than Tyrion is most definitely guilty of blatant abuse with Shae.

Lancel and Jaime, according to the list your were using. Not so with Shae, according to the particulars of their interaction, but his murder of her was a step beyond abuse, and inexcusable.

As for your list of "Cersei is an abuser," reasons, a few of them cite stuff that only happened on the TV show.

Do they indeed? Is it enough to reduce the qualifiers to, say 9 out of 15? And if so, would that refute the point?

[deleted01]

<snip>

:agree: With pretty much everything you said.

Yes Tyrion played as well, although the jury is still out on wether he´s loosing or not. If it was up to me, I´d have Drogon make a crispy snack out of him.

I think the reason some characters get more negative attention than others is that their actions are debatable. I´d have a hard time imagining someone making the case that Gregor Clegane had good reasons for doing everything he´s done (I´m sure that this probably has been done but I doubt that it was taken seriously).

I agree with this too - but not with Drogon making a crispy snack out of Tyrion!

Arguments are made about characters because their actions are debatable, I think you're absolutely right. However, even characters such as Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Snow could be explored. I wouldn't want to, and I doubt the arguments would hold up very well, but if we got an insight into their childhoods, maybe we'd begin to feel sympathy towards them, like some of us have with Sandor and Theon. That's what's so great and so interesting about these characters - they might do some disgusting things, but every now and then you get an insight into why they did/do them, which fascinates me for one. Doesn't necessarily make me like them, but I find it interesting all the same. Better add this to the list of why I'm an awful, scary person :lol:

<snip>

No, no, my friend, of course what is being portrayed is that the women these men interact with are responsible for their downfall <_<

/sarcasm off.

Brilliant post, btw.

[James Arryn]

There is no doubt that GRRM presents the notion that everyone has a dark side to them. The problem isn't with GRRM. The problem is with readers who cheer on Tyrion or Sandor or Robert for being lovable/beautifully tragic badassess, when in fact they are are pretty fucking horrible people.

But that's not a gender thing. They cheer on Arya for being a beautifully tragic bad-ass mass murderer, Sansa is now forgiven for betraying her father because she has endured and is (potentially) learning how to play the game by LF, the Sand Snakes treachery, ambition, willingness to use 'dishonorable' means of murder, etc. as sexy bad asses, etc. And if Dany ever gets off her ass and onto some dragons to fight for her father's crown, she will also be much revered as a bad ass.

People have differing takes on different characters. A construct that attributes much of this to gender is fairly pedestrian banner waving. It's imo insulting to actual arguments against misogyny.

[ishmael]

1. A push for quick involvement: comes on very strong, claiming “I’ve never felt like this by anyone.” An abuser pressures the woman for an exclusive commitment almost immediately.

Yes, he fully expected to die the next day. He took care of their formal business arrangement as soon as he determined that he liked her enough to keep her around should he survive.

2. Jealousy: excessively possessive, calls constantly or visits unexpectedly, prevents you from going to work or school because “you might meet someone.”

3. Controlling: Interrogates you intensely about whom you talked to, and where you were, keeps all the money, insists you ask permission to go anywhere or do anything.

5. Isolation: tries to cut you off from family and friends; accuses people who are your supporters of “causing trouble”

While they were still in camp he visited with her every day. She lived in his tent. It wasn't a secret. Tywin knew. He didn't hide her. When they went to KL, the game changed. She wanted to go. She kind of liked the pampered life she was living with him. However, considering that Tywin had made it clear he did not want her seen with Tyrion in KL, they had to be more discreet. We know what Tywin did to Tysha when Tyrion was married to her. So, what would he do to Shae if Tyrion disobeyed a direct order and took her to KL? I don't think Tyrion really wanted to find out. He hid her and tried his best to keep her as secret as possible. This wasn't to protect his reputation or keep her uder his thumb. It was done to protect her from Tywin and his wrath. Yes, Tyrion did surround her with ugly and smely guards because he is insecure about his looks and his real appeal to women, but it wasn't a control issue as you like to imply it was. It was more about his insecurities.

4. Unrealistic expectations: expects you to be the perfect woman and meet his every need.

11. Verbal abuse: constantly criticizes, or says bluntly cruel, hurtful, degrades, curses, calls you ugly names….

12. Rigid sex roles: expects you to serve, obey, and remain at home.

Shae agreed to play a role for him. She was a prostitute. She was being paid primarily to service his sexual desires and needs, that is part of the job description for a prostitute. A john pays and the prostitiute provides the service he wants. If she doesn't want to do what the john wants, then he can go to another prostitute or can up the compensation for her until she is willing. Tyrion was paying for a fantasy that was always in flux. Shae must have been up to the task because I don't remember to many complaints about her not being able to live up to his expectations. His problem was that while he knew it was the fantasy that he creasted, he still kept falling into the trap of believing something real was developing between them. He would then have periods when he saw their arrangement for what it really was: she was a whore and was providing what he was asking for. So yes, he did treat her as a sex object, because that is what she agreed to be. He did describe their "relationship" very crudely and bluntly, but in reality she was being paid for him getting to use her body, and she agreed to this arrangement.

7. Makes everyone else responsible for his feelings: The abuser says, “you make me angry,” instead of saying “I am angry” or “you’re hurting me by not doing what I tell you to.”

14. Past Battering: admits to hitting women in the past, but says they made him do it or the situation brought it on.

Really? You try to justify your point by using the fact that a young boy didn't stand up to the Tywin Lannister as the support for this point. Noone at this time stood up to Tywin. Jamie didn't either and he was one of the best swordsmen in the 7 Kingdoms. What was tyrion to do? Fight Tywin and all of the Lannister soldiers for her honor. He was shell shocked and was not thinking clearly. His world had been destroyed in a matter of minutes. He did not visit this abuse on Tysha, Tywin did. Yes, Tyrion slapped Shae once and he slapped Joffrey a few times, but this does not make him abusive toward women. He struck Shae in anger which is technically abuse, but one strike does not make it a pattern. Joffery, on the other hand, that was well deserved abuse.

**Especially the fact that Tyrion very much seems to view Shae as more of an object or an extremely desirable piece of clay to mold into whatever role he deems he needs at whatever particular moment. (Whether it be a wild young sex goddess, a comfort against the wickedness of the world, etc.)

She was an object to him. She was an object to all men. She agreed to play the role of sex toy/object, plaything, or whatever else he desired from the start. He made clear what he wanted from the start and she agreed to the role. There never was any balance to this relationship. Considering the imbalance in relationships during the time period, is it surprising that a prostitiute (who was lower in the hierarchy than most) would end up on the short end of the stick in a situation like this. Tyrion treated her much better than she would have gotten treated 99.99% of the men in the 7 kingdoms, and she had a much better life while she was with him than all the other prostitutes we see.

I think you are way off base here. You have tried to apply these warning signs to a situation that they are not designed to be applied. You cannot compare a boyfriend-girlfriend/husband-wife relationship to the relationship between a prostitute and a john. The dynamics are not even close to being the same, nor is the psychological outlooks of those involved, or the expectations of those involved. While a few of your points have some solid textual support, overall it fails because it doesn't realy apply to their situation.

[Prince Alexander]

But that's not a gender thing. They cheer on Arya for being a beautifully tragic bad-ass mass murderer, Sansa is now forgiven for betraying her father because she has endured and is (potentially) learning how to play the game by LF, the Sand Snakes treachery, ambition, willingness to use 'dishonorable' means of murder, etc. as sexy bad asses, etc. And if Dany ever gets off her ass and onto some dragons to fight for her father's crown, she will also be much revered as a bad ass.

People have differing takes on different characters. A construct that attributes much of this to gender is fairly pedestrian banner waving. It's imo insulting to actual arguments against misogyny.

Do you seriously, honestly, want to compare the amount of hate vs cheering on female vs male characters? Seriously? Honestly?

[Kalbear]

You're right; a prostitute/John is already an abusive relationship and all of these things already apply. Good of you to condense things so succinctly.

[James Arryn]

Yes, doesn't everyone read dystopian feminist literature from time to time?

I certainly have, for various reasons, not the least of which being that my mother was a social worker who dealt primarily with abused women or single mothers. But also as I studied Lit, etc.

My issue with most of the most iconic fem lit stuff is the same as my issue with most (insert isssue) stuff; once you get the message, it makes for really boring, often pretentious reading.

Now, in addition, I have met Atwood more than once, and she is incredibly pretentious in person. One of those people who constantly speaks with finger quotation marks, even when not actually doing it. If you had to do a, say, Law and Order caricature of an artiste as summarized in 2 minutes of screen time, she'd do wonderfully. I've met Robertson Davies, too, and he's pretty dickish.

But her work...you get the point pretty quickly, and then spend the rest of her novels being slapped in the face with it again and again. Pretentious and boring.

Same with Margaret Lawrence...but more stodgy and boring than pretentious. Like 5-10 pages into Stone Angel you get it. She's a completely non-maternal, non-soft, non-anything women are 'supposed to be'. And she's unlikable. And her lack of likability is central to the point: she shouldn't have to be sympathetic to be exactly who she is. She is under no obligation to certain characteristics because of gender expectations, and making her likable would undermine the point of that. Okay, great point, well made, get it.

But now I have a whole book to read, and all it does it reaffirm that point. It's like eating nothing but unsweetened porridge for a week. It's just bland and bleak, and once you get the point and the point of the character being unlikable, all her being unlikable does is to prevent you from being invested in the book beyond an investment in the point. If, like me, you grew up being around workshops and seminars for feminism, abused women, etc. you even had the point before you cracked the cover.

So it's bland.

Just like most books whose only real point is to illustrate a point about ___ism. Native Son, hooked me when I was a little kid, but when I read it again later it was the same thing as Stone Angel; get the point, then yawn for 200 pages or whatever. My mother had me reading Solzhenitsyn when I was 9...and there's only so much 'triumph of the human spirit amid the bleak barren landscape of post Lenin Soviet Union' you need to read before you understand it.

I think literature making important statements is important, but books that just make the same point over and over, or like Atwood, authors who make the same point novel after novel...well, if it doesn't also entertain, it's pretty much self-defeating, imo.

(I admit with Atwood it's hard to separate the art from the artist, though.)

Gah, tangent over.