Gender and Power in Cersei's & Dany's story lines

[Florina Laufeyson]

Actually, now that I think about it, could the argument be made that Jon is the most enlightened character in the series? Hmm, I'm going to ponder that a bit more.

I believe there was a thread about who was the most enlightened in the series and he ended up being a pretty big contender. Theres a reason i stan for him, you know. :P

Im out of likes so for the rest of your post, im just gonna say :agree:

As for Maggy, It DID cheapen a bit of Cersei's character, but i didnt mind that look at a younger Cersei. I often wondered what sort of person she was when she was young. Was she a Sansa type, who was a sweet girl only to become embittered by Robert's assy behavior? Or was she always a bit on the questionable side, morally? Ya know? Her little drawing of Rhaegar and herself on dragons was very sweet, but then other events are brought to light. :/

[jons nissa]

His "war proven general" is largely propaganda.

His big wins were all basically, "You gotta screw up real bad to lost this."

Castamere: His banner men. Not a huge portion. A few. Any lord should crush this.

King's Landing: The losing side of a war opens its gates to greet him as a friend.

Balon: Balon was an idiot who thought he could take on the entire Seven Kingdoms.

The first competent general he faced was Robb Stark where he got beaten in every conflict until Tywin defeated him by other means.

His war reputation comes from a song about Tywin winning a battle that any general could win. And the song is less about the battle and more about Tywin's punishment after.

So, just an Other is right about reputation when it comes to war.

:blushing: i admit to not having a fool proof recollection of my reading of tywin's battles. it is truly time for a reread! however, i will give you the benefit of the doubt that his wins came about as you've mentioned above. i still believe that his reputation was earned, even if it is luck that allowed him to win his battles. luck is often the deciding factor (sun in the enemies eyes, something information overlooked, etc) at the end of the day, he was the commander of successful fighting. and saying castamere was his banners is sort of irrelevant since it is always the foot soldiers that actually DO anything.

Thank you. :blushing:

I've seen many posts that talk about the signs that women will have increased opportunity for power. If we look to our world for potential clues, times of social upheaval have led to increases in the status of women. In recent times, we saw that with WWII. But, the same happened during both the civil and revolutionary war (My US perspective is coming through here!). In the same way, plagues resulted in changes to status and increased opportunities for many. So, what do we have going on Westeros? Years of war and more war to come. Winter has arrived and hints to greyscale. I once looked at the different Houses in the North and was surprised at just how many of them had dead male heirs. Could that perhaps be another sign that change is afoot?

yes, i do believe change is underfoot. i have long wondered how far grrm will take his "revolution" which is how i see westeros at the moment. you are right that history has shown movements gain momentum and then can stall only to start again after another "incident."

in westeros, after a great deal of suffering and disaster, i think we will see the start of significant change that will leave the land without magic, with a bit more equality (gender and class) and no iron throne. however, this isn't a "how will it end" thread so i'll get back to the subject at hand.

Yes, I am thinking along the lines of balance, even if I can't fully define what that balance looks like.

i am totally in your camp here. clearly westeros is not in balance and you state many solid reasons why it isn't. i want nothing more than to see it put right. and yet, i do not believe that grrm will do that. it would be too clean an ending. too perfect. NOT bittersweet. so i don't think we'll see women having an equal path to power. perhaps there will be more open opposition. perhaps more will denounce the inequalities and we may even have a woman or two in unquestioned positions of power. but i doubt it will be more than that.

we haven't gotten a good balance regarding gender in our current world. surely grrm sees this and would not make his world more "utopian" in that regard. or any other regard, for that matter. :crying:

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I'm not too bothered by Maggy. Certainly, it could be something we do without, but I don't think it really was on Cersei's mind too much until Joffery died. That was a pretty big turning point in Cersei's life. It's hard to say what was on her mind by going by her POV after that (I believe she did start drinking quite a bit after that for example).

:blushing: i admit to not having a fool proof recollection of my reading of tywin's battles. it is truly time for a reread! however, i will give you the benefit of the doubt that his wins came about as you've mentioned above. i still believe that his reputation was earned, even if it is luck that allowed him to win his battles. luck is often the deciding factor (sun in the enemies eyes, something information overlooked, etc) at the end of the day, he was the commander of successful fighting. and saying castamere was his banners is sort of irrelevant since it is always the foot soldiers that actually DO anything.

Nah. Not luck. He just had a major advantage in all of them. I'm not saying he is a bad commander. I'm not even saying he's not good. Just not as awesome as his reputation says he is.

As for Castamere, I mean, a couple of his bannermen are severely outnumbered because the rest of his bannermen were still loyal.

Tywin's power comes from court, not battle. I will admit he is a master of that.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Cersei's gender effects her abilty to lead because being a woman has given her an inferiority complex. She has something to prove and despite being sneaky and ruthless enough to gain power she doesn't realize she hasn't been taught how to hold on to it. Her attempts to show everyone how smart she is and how simple being in charge is only digs her in a deeper hole and her problem is she doesn't SEE the hole.

Dany has no education but knows love and fear will take you far. Her people love her, her enemies fear her (or her dragons at least). She's a proven conqueror and if she steps foot in Westeros her name and her dragons will gain her the loyalty of half the kingdom, probably more, without her having to lift a finger. If she wipes out her problems in Meeren with effective politics and vicious bloodshed her legend will only grow. Her problems are less about gender. If she had Cersei's ruthlessness she'd be a nearly perfect ruler. Well as long as she doesn't bring Daario with her.

[Castel]

His "war proven general" is largely propaganda.

His big wins were all basically, "You gotta screw up real bad to lost this."

Castamere: His banner men. Not a huge portion. A few. Any lord should crush this.

King's Landing: The losing side of a war opens its gates to greet him as a friend.

Balon: Balon was an idiot who thought he could take on the entire Seven Kingdoms.

The first competent general he faced was Robb Stark where he got beaten in every conflict until Tywin defeated him by other means.

His war reputation comes from a song about Tywin winning a battle that any general could win. And the song is less about the battle and more about Tywin's punishment after.

So, just an Other is right about reputation when it comes to war.

It would be a war that no onecould lose...if we knew anything about it. Honestly making judgements on this is like making judgements on whether Tywin murdered Elia. IT's basically your opinion. There are vassals that are bigger than others, there are vassals that refuse to help hurt other vassals. Look at the Tyrells with Oldtown. Oldtown provides a huge number of troops and is probably the richest city in The Reach. The Tyrells have to keep them locked down. And if they did rebel under a weak lord, who's to say that all the Tyrell vassals would show up or at full strength? I got the impression that the rebellion in the West was a general one, with the Red Lion and the Tarbecks trying to steal power, that needs support or at least non-interference. But then again, that's just my personal opinion. For us to know how easy the war was, we need to know more about the Reynes and Tarbecks. We don't know anything.

IF Martin changes the world to a matriarchal world, I will be truly shocked. I think he is pointing towards a world with increased opportunity which can lead to positive changes for both men and women. If there was less value on the sword and a stronger recognition of the mind as a weapon (to borrow Tyrion here), I wonder what opportunities both Sam and Tyrion would have had? Would Sam struggle with his sense of cowardice and low self-esteem?

I really don't see that. And I don't see how it would happen really. At best, they end up like Dorne but I can't see how the other kingdoms would or could abandon their ideas of what it is to be a man and a woman. It's simply not viable given their society. Nor do I see what'd change their superstitions or their need for strong, fighting nobles.

Maybe if Dany's dynasty rules for longer than the Targs and uses terrible heavy handed tactics to prevent all war, creates it's own standing army and makes other knights obsolete this'll happen, otherwise I can't see it. And that set of circumstances is ridiculously unlikely as far as I can see.

[Winter's Knight]

Dany's liberation attempts had led to some increase in leadership roles for women I think. Wasn't there a freed harp player who was the leader of the ex-slaves in Meereen? She wad killed by the sons of the Harpy I believe.

[Castel]

Dany's liberation attempts had led to some increase in leadership roles for women I think. Wasn't there a freed harp player who was the leader of the ex-slaves in Meereen? She wad killed by the sons of the Harpy I believe.

A woman rising to a position of power during turmoil in Essos not indicative of a possible wider change in gender roles, especially for men. The things that make Tyrion and Sam unlikeable are old and their roots are deep and some would say necessary or better yet, unavoidable. Like I said, at best they become like Dorne and eliminate one of the greater problems (inheritance). Tyrion will still be an abomination and the Randyll Tarlys of the world will still exist,and a military power will always hate someone like Samwell. Life would hopefully become better for women, but that depends on Dany and how far she'll push it. It'd take a while either way.

EDIT: Honestly, I don't know how much trouble they are in personally, there are lots of positions for people with brains. It's just that Randyll Tarly and Tywin Lannister are utter assholes. Even in the Watch they need men like Samwell, it''s just that they probably needed scouts more at that point. That or Ser Allister was also an asshole. Regardless if they had let Samwell join the Maesters this would not have been an issue. It's just a case of one person being an asshole.

Nobles have options.The peasants are probably the people with the bigger problem but since their value is in their labour I don't think that there's much economic incentive to push for change.

[Winter's Knight]

And this is why Westeros needs to invent the printing press.

[Lyanna Stark]

interesting that you feel these are all examples of how things are worse for the wives when i think the men would disagree with you and say it's equally bad. robert clearly wasn't happy with cersei. jon arryn needed an heir and lysa was presented because she proved to be fertile. while jon got the son he wanted, there's nothing to show he enjoyed the match. one could argue it was equally advantageous to them since finding a high born husband was very slim for lysa and staying home was not viewed well. stannis views sex with selyse as his duty. i will admit it was advantageous to walder since all he wanted was another woman to bed. gregor is a weird one for me in that he's just a psychotic, sadistic mess and while i don't doubt his wives were miserable, it's more because of him being crazy. but yes, the women probably had no choice but to marry him. don't know enough about aerys to say anything about that union.

I have never argued that men were made happy by arranged marriages. In fact, I prefaced my original post with that arranged marriages are bad for both men and women, as a rule. Hence I am not sure why are arguing against something never stated by me?

That both men and women are often very unhappy in arranged marriages is clear, however men do have the power over women in the marriage. As we have seen with Cersei and Lysa up close, and regarding Rhaella through Jaime, they had to suffer having sex with their husband while unwilling to do so. This is normally labelled marital rape and is today a crime in many countries, yet the Westeros women have no way of getting out of this "duty". What Gregor's and Walder's wives felt we cannot know, only guess. To ignore this powerlessness is disingenious. To argue that Lysa should have been content with marrying Jon Arryn since her chances of making a good marriage is also disingenious, since it completely ignores Lysa's personal happiness and puts her social status as more important than the sanctity of her body. We also know that Lysa valued having a husband she wanted higher than social status, since she was onboard with marrying Littlefinger, and never stopped holding it against Hoster Tully, to the degree that once she was shipped off to the Vale, she never once wrote, spoke or met her father again. It's also clear Hoster knew this, as on his deathbed he asks for forgiveness.

Stannis can and does avoid having sex with Selyse, showing that as a man and the main power in a marriage, it is within his rights to do so.

anyway, i think grrm is showing that both men and women were forced into marriage and none were happy about it. and while the husband's adultery was ignored, women were also able to take lovers. they just had to be more careful about so, there was a double standard in that but it happened enough.

I think you contradict yourself here. You acknowledge the double standards and emphasises that both men and women fare badly, which has never been in doubt. The point of the argument is not that men fare well and women don't, but that it is bad for both, but worse for women.

kittykatnits, so eloquently explained. i agree whole heartedly. and thank you for not wanting or expecting a shift to a matriarchy to be the answer. so many posts seem to be advocating that and see so many many signs that is already underway.

*shudders*

The view that posters argue for a shift to matriarchy seems to be based on a misunderstanding on what criticism of patriarchy means. Removing, or fighting the patriarchy does not mean the goal is to establish a matriarchy at all, it's to criticise and remove a power structure that is harmful, not establish another one that is an upside down version of the same.

butterbumps! initially commentary about Dany's use of power touches on this too, in that the usage of the same means as what holds you down is often not the whole answer to how to resolve a situation. This is why Cersei also comes off as so clueless with her ruling: she as a woman is trying to rule as a man, using Tywin's strongly patriarchal tactics. And she fails at this completely. Cersei cannot pretend, as she likes to do, that she is in fact a man. She cannot ignore her status as a woman.

[Lyanna Stark]

Thanks for starting this, Lyanna!

So, a huge question for me on this subject is whether there is a conceivable way for the characters to actually overturn the patriarchy without using the methods that enable its very existence.

Cersei feels victimized by the patriarchy, but she simultaneously wants to be the patriarchy. Dany believes herself entitled to rule over Westeros due to patriarchal customs, which set up power as a hereditary right. Further she has a big stick, so that should her appeal to custom fail, she can use the same logic of empowerment that Cersei goes in terms of subverting the gender role, but still promoting the same construction of power. I think that the end of DwD shows us that Dany intends to be even more entrenched in the "might makes right" mentality given her embrace of her "monster" and committing herself to "take what's hers" (apparently "hers" based on the strongly patriarchal hereditary customs).

Both the "might makes right" and hereditary power constructions promote truly awful leadership situations, and they are exactly the methods used to keep the patriarchy in motion in the first place (and if it overturns this into a "matriarchy" I'd be no more pleased by the gender division, as I am already cautious enough about the nature of these power constructions).

I guess an initial question is what could an alternative course practically be for a woman to hold power in her own right that does not resort to small subversions of inheritance or holding a bigger stick? Dany gained support as a mother figure, but chose the stick at least for the meantime. Of interest perhaps is Marg's efforts at cultivating the love of the smallfolk, as well as Renly's similar appeal, the QoT's machinations, the game Sansa is learning from LF (which, I hate to admit is an alternative-- or more like a perversion-- of the patriarchal system). It seems that a sharp mind and popular support are potential paths that actually would subvert-- truly subvert--the construction of power Cersei and Dany are currently trying to navigate and have ultimately embodied (at this point).

I tend to agree here with Lummel's observation of the lack of balance in society and that when once side gets to "take over" (i.e. the side with the most sword completely subjugates the other side with violence) there is no stability in society. As Dany noticed, I think, is that conquering is easy, but ruling is hard. Tearing apart is simpler than building something lasting.

The notion of using the tools of the patriarchy to fight it is also interesting, since I tend to agree with you that completely emulating it will only need to failure. We see this clearly with Cersei when she actually enacts what it is to be a man when she pretends to be Robert violating Taena. Cersei pretends to be a man, by trying to assume the male role both in ruling and even sexually, but ultimately, she cannot ignore the fact that she is female. It impacts her entife life, her upbringing and try as she might, she cannot become a man. I think with this, GRRM has already shown us that he does not believe that a female ruler can just act androgynously and ignore their gender.

On the other hand, I think Dany has a certain ambivalence against her "Big Stick". It's also reflected in her relationship with her dragons in some ways. Symbolically, she is their mother, and she is the one who nurtures and gives life; a creator. On the other hand, as the "owner" of these dragons, she is in possession of the biggest stick in her world. So she takes on the dual role of both the archetypical female in the role of mother, nurturer, giver of life, but also the archetypical active male ruler, conqueror and destroyer. In this I think she is very interesting since her struggle through a lot of ADWD is how to reconcile these two parts. How can you be a mother and monster, a giver of life and a taker of life? However, life and power do have aspects of both, and can you have one without the other?

This is also the point in which I think some posters get confused and believe there is an argument made for matriarchy, i.e. a complete replacement of the patriarchal, "hard" power structures of the Big Stick with other power structures, and in that case, what would these be? I don't think this is the whole solution though. Instead it seems to me Dany embodies the struggles that ruling is about. You need the Big Stick to get to the top, but once there, you need the power to create, to preserve, to give life, to make things stable and lasting. The latter catergory are definitely more traditionally "female" attributes, but can you have those without the Big Stick? That is quite unlikely since there will be other people also wielding Big Sticks, and if you cannot hold them off, it does not matter how great you were ate creating, building long lasting things and harvesting olives, it's not going to last anyway.

And thusly we come back to the theme of balance, and that neither extreme is any good, really. :)

EDIT: I was reminded of Sansa's hymn to the Mother while writing this. She does not argue for a complete revolution or a different powerstructure, but to "save our sons from war, we pray" and "teach us all a gentler way". So perhaps more "reform" than "revolution"? ;)

[Castel]

Is primogeniture inherently patriarchal? I mean,I get that Agnatic Primogeniture is a tool but at this point is it so for Dany? It seems to me that she wants Westeros because of her dragons. Or do you think that the entire idea of passing down things is patriarchal?

[Lyanna Stark]

Is primogeniture inherently patriarchal? I mean,I get that Agnatic Primogeniture is a tool but at this point is it so for Dany? It seems to me that she wants Westeros because of her dragons. Or do you think that the entire idea of passing down things is patriarchal?

I don't find the idea of passing down things in itself patriarchal, but the Targaryens do practise a very strict patrilineal primogeniture. As of now, I am not even certain if Dany is as aware of this as she should be.

Her motivations for wanting to go to Westeros are probably more complext though, involving a huge helping of Viserys' propaganda, among other things.

(Btw as a citizen of a Constitutional Monarchy, I have a lot of Views on the Monarchy, but that the primogeniture is patriarchal as it is now is not one of them. I think it suffers from a lot of other problems though. ;) )

[Lummel]

...On the other hand, I think Dany has a certain ambivalence against her "Big Stick". It's also reflected in her relationship with her dragons in some ways. Symbolically, she is their mother, and she is the one who nurtures and gives life; a creator. On the other hand, as the "owner" of these dragons, she is in possession of the biggest stick in her world. So she takes on the dual role of both the archetypical female in the role of mother, nurturer, giver of life, but also the archetypical active male ruler, conqueror and destroyer. In this I think she is very interesting since her struggle through a lot of ADWD is how to reconcile these two parts. How can you be a mother and monster, a giver of life and a taker of life? However, life and power do have aspects of both, and can you have one without the other?...

Yes, I suppose the escape from a system where those with the biggest sticks win after a big stick comparing competition (is it length only or breadth too that is taken into account ;) ) is to go back to Varys' riddle and look for a system that promotes consent conditional on shared interests. So rather than having the big stick to beat everyone up, take their lunch money and divide it amongst your friends you have if not democrasy then at least talking and an intention to reach fair agreements.

Perhaps there is a way that by having simply a bigger stick than anybody else can even dream of Daenerys is in a unique position to change the rules of the game.

EDIT: I was reminded of Sansa's hymn to the Mother while writing this. She does not argue for a complete revolution or a different powerstructure, but to "save our sons from war, we pray" and "teach us all a gentler way". So perhaps more "reform" than "revolution"? ;)

Given the idealisation of violence in chivalry and knighthood this is quite a revolutionary sentiment...

Is primogeniture inherently patriarchal? I mean,I get that Agnatic Primogeniture is a tool but at this point is it so for Dany? It seems to me that she wants Westeros because of her dragons. Or do you think that the entire idea of passing down things is patriarchal?

I don't think that inherited political power necessarily should be inherently patriachal, even if it has been in the Targaryen monarchy.

One thing that a system of inherited rule with strict sytems of lineage and marriage do is guarentee an institutional role for both women and men. This is a system of family power. It is just that in Weseros (and generally in medieval Europe) that the power of women has been restricted to running the household rather than them having a birth order determined right to the lordship. I suppose in Westeros you would need to change the institutions to make them equal but it would be reform rather than revolution. Er...provided that isses of gender outweigh your concerns about social inequality of course :)

I was thinking by way of contrast of the later Roman Empire when the Emperor adopted his sucessor as son or the army choose some guy who looked like he knew what to do with a sword to be the next Emperor or those countries where rulership is determined by coup. No women required there (I know that some of those Emperor's married the successor to nieces or daughters, so I'm exagerrating slightly to make the point), but you can have systems that are relentlessly masculine and macho.

[Lyanna Stark]

Yes, I suppose the escape from a system where those with the biggest sticks win after a big stick comparing competition (is it length only or breadth too that is taken into account ;) ) is to go back to Varys' riddle and look for a system that promotes consent conditional on shared interests. So rather than having the big stick to beat everyone up, take their lunch money and divide it amongst your friends you have if not democrasy then at least talking and an intention to reach fair agreements.

Perhaps there is a way that by having simply a bigger stick than anybody else can even dream of Daenerys is in a unique position to change the rules of the game.

Hah, yes, the imagery did not escape me either when I wrote it. ;)

I agree that Dany could, by sheer force of having that big stick, have enough leverage to change the rules. For instance, she could potentially force through changes so that women could become Maesters (and not have to fake being a man like Sarella Sand), Septons and rulers in their own right. A change in the Targaryen rules of primogeniture could be a start, for instance, in making women ruling in their own right a legitimate and accepted option.

Of course, as we know from real life examples, simply removing the legal obstacles on women's routes to power doesn't automatically make everything equal. If it was so, women and men would basically have become equal on the day women were allowed to vote, more or less. But as we know, that did not happen.

EDIT: Regarding chivarly, yes, I agree to a point in that there is a glorification of violence inherent to it. However the emphasis could lie more in protecting and preserving instead of going forth to destroy, but that emphasis seems to have been both corrupted (see Aery's Seven and their vouws, which on the face of it are noble and just, but just ended up being so wrong) and shifted towards more glorification of both faux battles in tourneys, but also real violence on the battlefield. So in that way, "teach us all a gentler way" is a revolutionary thought. However to introduce it as a viable alternative to violence, is it more revolutionary or more of a "reform" thought? ;)

[JoeJoe]

The systems that govern westros is far to different for a roman like succession to happen. It took centuries and several important periods for our society to change and many here want westros to do that now. Cerci's action is far more detrimental to women in westros. Its not only Power, but how that power is acquired and how cerci's got her power will determined how future westros sees this event.

[Scipio Africanus]

Wow this thread has bigger walls of text then an average Stan thread, kudos people.

Had Cersei been born a man, she would have been the heir to Casterly Rock, and Tywin's heir.

But she is heir now to Casterly Rock end DwD lol. Jamie refused it twice and Tyrion got exiled.

W00t!

I think that Cersei actually has decent ideas when it comes to ruling but her shoddy execution and charming manners tend to throw a wrench in the works.

You certainly have a sense of humor. ;)

But no Cercei has very poor ideas of ruling. She's trying to copy Tywin and you know what? Tywin wasn't a good ruler or a good battlefield commander. Tywin was only ruthless and lucky. Admittingly that can get you far, but as with Tywin, luck runs out at a point. Leaves only the ruthless part. People most certainly can be bullied/threatened into submission and sometimes it can be for decades at a time, but they will never love those who oppress them, and one day the oppressed will rise against the oppressors. It is simply human nature. And the Lannister will find that out end WoW when Cercei is running for her life back to the Rock.

Cersei feels victimized by the patriarchy, but she simultaneously wants to be the patriarchy.

Spot on.

You see, Cercei would actually be a poster girl for feminism, and it is true what she says, why doesn't she get taken seriously just because she's a woman? The problem of course is, she's equally cruel towards her own gender, and that really deminishes her arguement. Basically, she's just a male version of Tywin, a not so cunning ruler himself, who inspires nothing but fear and that in the long run won't help solidifying Lannister rule.

But the biggest problem with Cercei is that people like LF and Varys want to keep her in power, because she screws up so much. That pretty much contradicts the notion that she has good ideas, but is poorly executing them. She doesn't have good ideas, at all so far as I've seen. I love reading her POVs because I actually facepalm whenever she decides something and then thinks she's a genius. But then again, I imagine Tywin had similar problems, so I guess we can see where she got that from...

believes herself entitled to rule over Westeros due to patriarchal customs, which set up power as a hereditary right. Further she has a big stick, so that should her appeal to custom fail,

If you absolutely insist on even indirectly comparing Dany "FIRE AND BLOOD" Targaryan to one of the best presidents the US has ever had...

The problem with Dany is that she forgot the "speak softly" part of it.

[Castel]

EDIT: Regarding chivarly, yes, I agree to a point in that there is a glorification of violence inherent to it. However the emphasis could lie more in protecting and preserving instead of going forth to destroy, but that emphasis seems to have been both corrupted (see Aery's Seven and their vouws, which on the face of it are noble and just, but just ended up being so wrong) and shifted towards more glorification of both faux battles in tourneys, but also real violence on the battlefield. So in that way, "teach us all a gentler way" is a revolutionary thought. However to introduce it as a viable alternative to violence, is it more revolutionary or more of a "reform" thought? ;)

I think it would be...difficult to redefine chivalry when it's there to keep knights and lords in line. However those same knights and lords are always at war. It seems to be to prevent not just murder and mayhem, but of the wrong people. I don't see how it can change when the murder and mayhem is inherently a part of it.

A knight's purpose will always be to kill for his lord, so I don't see how that can ever be removed from the idea as long as Westeros needs knights. At best it softens knights but it's been doing that for a while.I just don't see where it can go from here.

But no Cercei has very poor ideas of ruling. She's trying to copy Tywin and you know what? Tywin wasn't a good ruler or a good battlefield commander. Tywin was only ruthless and lucky. Admittingly that can get you far, but as with Tywin, luck runs out at a point. Leaves only the ruthless part. People most certainly can be bullied/threatened into submission and sometimes it can be for decades at a time, but they will never love those who oppress them, and one day the oppressed will rise against the oppressors. It is simply human nature

I don't think that Tywin was ever going to have to deal with an uprising, because he learned an important lesson: who to inflict injuries upon. People like the Reynes, Tarbecks and of course, Tyrion, people he could not only get away with inflicting injuries upon but benefit from. Now,every once in a while people fight back (The riverlords) but essentially that's the trick. As he says, crush your enemies, then offer them peace Caesar style. Look at him with Mace Tyrell, he's all sweetness, he's even content to let Mace think that he runs the council.

You need a huge popular discontent for an uprising. For that you need to generally oppress people, unfortunately for Tywin unusual circumstances created a situation in which he had to deal with the discontent of his own people otherwise he would have gone on murdering riverlanders and their nobles all day with little consequence. Even then he probably would have gotten away with it.

[Lyanna Stark]

I did thought of these issues when i was writing my post and what you are saying here is 100% valid. I chose to make that disconnection as you call it because:

1) Even a very minor change in a person's life can make him/her turn into a completely different person.

2) (1) means that it can be applied to virtually every character and not only in connection with their gender. For example:

a) Joffrey might not have been such a prick if Robert was a better father

b ) Ramsay might not have been a flaying psycho if he wasn't a bastard/ if his father was someone like Ned/ if X horrible unknown to us thing in his life happened

c) Theon would most likely not be that arrogant betraying jackass (pre-Reek) if he wasn't bullied by his brothers as a child

d) A gender-related one: Sam would have it much better and would probably turn out a very different character if he was a woman since Randyll would not torture him to "make him a man"

e) Robb might have been a much worse person if he had different parents raising him

f) Gregor Clegane might have been a very nice guy if he didn't have those headaches

g) Sandor Clegane would certainly be a very different person if his brother did not push his face into the fire

Etc.

This means that we can't really judge any character from the books because everyone has one or more "what if..." life-altering events or states. Also keep in mind that if in your judgment of Cersei you use this argument (which isn't unreasonable at all, it's a very strong and valid argument imo) then you would have to use it for other characters and non-gender related issues as well.

3) The possibilities of what the result of a minor change and ofcourse a major change like Cersei's hypothetical change of gender (especially in such male-dominated societies as the ones in ASOIAF) are literally endless. There are so many factors involved that It is impossible to examine a realistic alternative possibility, that is one that takes into account all the things you are bringing up here:

Surely, it goes without saying that had a person been born and raised in completely different circumstances, the may have turned out completely different.

However, to completely disregard gender as a very important impact on Cersei's way of ruling is not a valid point to argue I think, without completely defeating the object. What is the point of discussing power and the lack thereof if we do not look at the methods with which it is upheld? What is the point of looking at gender if we do not look at the structures in society that put men and women into restrictive roles? If we for some reason assume that just because things could have been different, they are no longer relevant to discuss, the not many things *are* relevant to discuss.

Cersei herself shows on several occasions that she is trying to somehow fit into a patriarchal society. She laments being sold off like a horse to Sansa, she laments to Tyrion that he would not have sent Myrcella away had he been born a woman, yet she also tries so hard to become Tywin and to even emulate Robert's process off subjugating herself.

I agree and i acknowledged these factors (generally not with the detail you wrote them) in my reply-post to Newstar in the "confessions" thread, where i also put the parameter "assuming same character and skills" because, for the reasons i said above, i don't see how a deeper analysis can be made with all those factors and endless possibilities.

So basicly when i say "if Cersei was a man" i am talking about the (completely unrealistic) hypothetical situation that Cersei would be exactly and 100% the same person as she is now (character traits etc), with the only difference been that she would be man and be treated by others as one.

In other words i am eliminating the current misogynistic obstacles of ASOIAF society, not the effects previous misogynistic obstacles had on Cersei's character because that would be impossible to calculate (aside from that broad generalization you said above, that she would have more methods at her disposal etc).

The point "had Cersei been a man" type of discussions is to highlight that by virtue of being a woman, her condition is different, and her paths to power are different. These are themes we can discuss and explore, without necessarily knowing exactly how things would have turned out had Cersei overnight been transformed into a man.

Cersei is relevant to the discussion in so far as she is a woman who attempts to rule a realm that has always been ruled by men. Dany is another such woman. Cersei and Dany approach leadership slightly differently and have different circumstances, but they do share the same problem of being a woman ruling in a man's world. Both have to deal with the issue of arranged and even forced marriage, of being looked down upon due to gender (Cersei's Walk of Shame is a very gender specific punishment as she gets to do it due to being a widow and engaging in sex) while Dany gets referred to as a whore by her enemies and has to try and navigate facts like how it's assumed that before her marriage she needs to have her "woman parts examined".

As much as Daario is useless, he does provide Dany with the truths that Queens' sole responsibility is to birth heirs. They have no formal power and act only as figureheads and broodmares. Dany gets upset with him, but one has to wonder if that is only because she is not familiar enough with history to know that this is, indeed, the role of Queens. Sansa learnt it from Cersei, when Cersei is on a rant and Sansa objects that she was Robert's Queen, and Cersei puts it in plain terms that being a Queen doesn't do anything for you but put you in a gilded cage.

[Scipio Africanus]

You need a huge popular discontent for an uprising. For that you need to generally oppress people, unfortunately for Tywin unusual circumstances created a situation in which he had to deal with the discontent of his own people otherwise he would have gone on murdering riverlanders and their nobles all day with little consequence. Even then he probably would have gotten away with it.

I doubt it but the truth is I admit that we'll never know.

That he "got away" with killing off several of his own bannermen is something different then trying to bully Westeros into submission. The Westlands have been ruled by the Lannisters for a very long time, but other lands obviously follow their own lords and traditions. They might not take it too kindly that the Lannisters are throwing their weight around. Comparing Caesar to Tywin btw in any way is an insult to Caesar.

Tywin didn't get away with his actions in the Riverlands, they were still up in arms by the time Tywin died, and if Edmure had been a better strategist Tywin would've had a much harder time subdueing them. The North was hardly secure (only Tywin thought so) and several major houses were already planning a rebellion against Lannister puppet rule through the Boltons.

In WoW we will see several things. Cercei will flee KL for her life. Tommen will either be further nominalized or disposed of. Tyrion's fate lies solely now with Dany and her ability to reach Westeros in the first place. The Riverlands will experience another uprising, probably led by mr. Blackfish. The North will overthrow the Boltons and either follow Stan or proclaim a new King in the North.

I don't call it #winning for Tywin or that he got away with his brutality in the long run.

Look at him with Mace Tyrell, he's all sweetness, he's even content to let Mace think that he runs the council.

Ah yes Lord Puff Fish, described as an oaf by his own mother and by all accounts is an indifferent general. In fact, it's even in the books, that Mace isn't the brains of the operation but the QoT is. This became evident when Tywin wanted to dump Cercei onto poor ol' Willas Tyrell and while Mace agreed, the QoT didn't, much to the annoyance of Tywin.

The QoT outplayed Tywin in more then one ways, if you carefully reread, but while admittingly Tywin couldn't have prevented some it (in the case of Joff), it also proves Tywin really wasn't that hot a ruler.

[Blisscraft]

Yes, I suppose the escape from a system where those with the biggest sticks win after a big stick comparing competition (is it length only or breadth too that is taken into account ;) ) is to go back to Varys' riddle and look for a system that promotes consent conditional on shared interests. So rather than having the big stick to beat everyone up, take their lunch money and divide it amongst your friends you have if not democrasy then at least talking and an intention to reach fair agreements.

Perhaps there is a way that by having simply a bigger stick than anybody else can even dream of Daenerys is in a unique position to change the rules of the game.

Oh, Lummel! Thank you. You made me laugh out loud! :rofl: