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

[Lummel]

Oh you know me Blisscraft, always glad to be of service ;)

[straits]

Funny that it takes dragons to possibly change the rules of the game.

[SeanF]

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. ;) )

Though, the Targaryens' seem to have been quite relaxed about female succession, up until the Dance of the Dragons.

[SeanF]

Dany's rise to power goes beyond the standard feudal structure. Kings rule by the grace of god. Dany her followers is of a divine mythical nature.

Some aspects of it. Dany is the last descndant of a mythical lost land steeped in sorcery that ruled the world. Her legacy is stamped on her features.

Her first followers, the Dothraki see her emerging from a miracle. She defeats the decedant dark warlocks of the east burning their house. She frees the Unsullied and ohter slaves who now follow her around calling her mother. She forces Yunkai to capitulate and gathers more followers and there after taking Meereen. In days ending the ghiscari cities. At which point she occupies the pinnacle of the highest pyramid looking down at the world. It seems to me that Dany has a level of devotion and fanaticism among the freedmen who call her mother that goes beyond the obedience the smallfolk demonstrate to their lords. She does not need intermediarys and there is no need for strucure. You don't question the prophet.

Dany rules on the basis of charisma, To her followers, she is like a demi-god. To the Red Priests, she is the reincarnation of Azhor Ahai.

She is the kind of person who says "In the old time, it was said unto you, but now I say unto you .........." and expects obedience, purely because it is she who is saying it.

She really stands outside of the entire system (with one important caveat):-

Her claim to Westeros is based upon tradition. She is the legitimate ruler, because she is the last surviving scion of House Targaryen. Her familiy's enemies deserve no mercy, and no mercy is what they'll get, should she rule Westeros.

[Kittykatknits]

Think about what the prophecy represents. The fear of someone younger and better suited taking our place in life is somerhing most people have or will experience at some point in life. Same with her fear about her children, it's a dangerous job being a king. And her rivalry with Tyrion begun well before AFFC. I don't know what it serves setting them in a mystical context, but these very realatable motives.

About the time of upheaval being an opportuntiy for the feamle characters making their own destiny, is true, but I wouldn't count on Martin giving us more than a sliver of hope. I think he is a bit too cynical for that. I think there will be small steps, gained with blood and tears.

Yep, I get all that. However, when I look at Cersei's character, it seems that all of those motivations could be there without the prophecy. She's got Lannister pride, she's aware of her beauty, and we can explore the Lannister sibling dynamic without adding in the fear that she is convinced that Tyrion is going to kill her one day.

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.

In my original post, I'd mentioned that what I foresee the most likely possibility is seeds or hints of what may change. The final book is dream of spring which would support the idea of a bittersweet ending. I don't expect to see dramatic change within the pages of the books themselves, I'm expecting to see signs that the world can be put back in to the balance it needs. At the end, I'm not entirely certain we will even see the rest of Westeros end up like Dorne to be honest. Not that I'd complain at all if this did happen.

[SeanF]

Daenerys is more interesting because her impact has been so revolutionary. She is turning societies up side down although the political and power implications of this don't entirely seem to have filtered through to issues of gender but it is interesting that a prominent and level headed councillor at her court is a twelve year old girl. She's also less encumbered by westerosi culture. What she knows of it has been affected by her time with the Dothraki. And her world view still seems to be profoundly influenced by having been sold by her brother in marriage for swords. Even though she sees her marriage as a success, the process of having been entered into it as an unwilling and frightened participant is something still on her mind. That could have interesting implications in a society held together by marital relations.

I beg to differ. Dany came to loathe slavery, on seeing it in practice. But, she's no revolutionary. She is absolutely convinced that her family has the right to rule Westeros; that their enemies are Usurpers' Dogs; that society should be ruled by nobles, who have servants, and whom the Small Folk defer to.

Even in Mereen, she considers it entirely correct that the nobility should remain in power, that freed slaves and small folk should work for them, and that Irri should come to her bed, when she is "summoned, " and "pushed away" if she fails to please. If she does destroy the Mereeese nobility, it will be because they threaten her rule, not because she thinks there shouldn't be nobility.

[SeanF]

Dany IMO still has to fight the notion of being a woman who leads, that chapter where she concludes that she must marry Hizdar to keep the peace for me was telling. She doesn't completely get some aspects of being a leader, dare I say she needs a bit of Cersei in her. Danys power is absolute because of the mythical ora that surrounds her; the birth of her dragons, the actual dragons, her unsullied, her passion, her kindness etc. In other words you want to be on her side because of love, because of her strength, or you believe in her divinity as the unburnt. Her true power has yet to be defined, and of all the players she is clearly the strongest. Personally I hope to see her really harness this power and become what she is destined to be, ruler of the seven kingdoms.

Daenerys doesn't need any more of the Cersei about her, but more of the Aegon the Conqueror, or Tywin.

By our standards, any successful ruler in this world has to be cruel to survive. One can be cruel, and capricious, or cruel but consistent, and just.

You need to be like Macchiavelli's Prince, who accepts that in an ideal world, a ruler would be loved, as well as feared, but fear is better than love. But, by fear, he means that people fear to defy the Prince, not that they fear that he'll execute them without cause, or steal their property from them.

[SeanF]

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.

I don't see how Cersei, or Dany, or any of the clever and strong-willed aristocratic women in the series could ever be poster girls for feminism. If they resent their place in the system, they don't question the system itself, and why should they? By virtue of the system, they are enormously powerful and privileged compared to the vast majority of the population. Trying to undermine the system would mean undermining everything they hold dear.

[Kolantero]

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.

That's the thing, the part you quoted me in the OP is me judging Cersei's character/skills etc not analyzing power structures. If we will look at Cersei to see how power is constructed and the effect the character's gender has on that then sure.

My post above was about judging the character since that's what i was doing in the previous thread (not examining patterns of power and gender etc), that is not examining for example that the gender injustices are the cause (either fully or partially) for Cersei's character and actions.

I just removed the "current" injustices to point out that, regardless of what made her like that (views on her gender included). she is incompetent now. And i'm not even really saying that you cannot support that her gender plays a role in shaping her character (it's a solid and valid point) but i am rather saying that if you are going to do that then you will have to do it consistently:

a) For all characters b ) For all themes (not just gender-related) and c) At the same extent.

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.

True, she doesn't really want for anything to change, except her own position in the power structure.

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.

I don't disagree, just saying that if we use our findings from such a discussion when judging a character, then we would also have to take in consideration similar stuff for other characters (by similar stuff i am referring to anything that goes under the topic "any life-altering events/states/statuses for a character"). Unless we make generalizations such as "Being a man has a better chance of success in ASOIAF universe"

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

Agreed

(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)

Wasn't Cersei's Walk partly because of her other crimes as well, like having the previous High Septon killed?

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".

Agreed, although i don't think the best example would be from how she is called by her enemies. I mean they are her enemies after all, they try to insult and hurt her however they can. Not that i doubt that they are sexists but even if they weren't, it would make sense to try and "degrade" Dany in any way they can since she is her enemy.

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.

I will have to slightly disagree with that. People would follow a king/queen if (s)he has power and like Varys says "power resides where people believe it resides". Now, because of the ASOIAF standards (and because a large part of power in medieval setting is physical strength and men are on average physically stronger), women are by default viewed (sometimes unfairly) as weaker which makes it much, much harder for them to gain,keep and control power.

But aside from that, a woman with enough power (e.g. Dany with her dragons) could still get herself in the same position as a male ruler. Take for example the ASOIAF-historical example of the war between two Targaryen siblings, male and female (can't recall their names now). We don't know much about it but if there was a civil war, that means that enough people stood behind the female heir to fight for her because they believed that she was the rightful heir and the better choice for succession.

I think the "cage" part goes for both genders. Robert also felt imprisoned in his role as a king. And while queens so far were often "glorified scenery" when it comes to decision making, if a woman gets enough power she will be the real "king".

Also with Cersei it would be useful i think to point out that the "royal" part of the situation was from Robert's side. Cersei was the queen only because she married Robert. If Cersei was the "royal" side (let's say the only daughter of the previous king) and Robert being a king only through his marriage with Cersei, then i have the feeling that the power relationship might have been very different.

Although i don't doubt that non-"royal side" Cersei has a lot less power than hypothetical non-"royal side" Robert would have.

With Dany situation is reversed: She is the Queen and any king will be king because of their marriage. An exception to this is Aegon (or FAegon) who is (supposedly) the rightful king. However, because Dany has dragons (and power), we see that Aegon was originally travelling towards her and we see later that he takes Tyrion's advice to built an army for himself since, according to Tyrion, Dany would reject him. So Dany is the powerful one of the two even though she is a woman and below him in the line of succession regardless of gender.

[Lion of Judah]

Daenerys doesn't need any more of the Cersei about her, but more of the Aegon the Conqueror, or Tywin.

By our standards, any successful ruler in this world has to be cruel to survive. One can be cruel, and capricious, or cruel but consistent, and just.

You need to be like Macchiavelli's Prince, who accepts that in an ideal world, a ruler would be loved, as well as feared, but fear is better than love. But, by fear, he means that people fear to defy the Prince, not that they fear that he'll execute them without cause, or steal their property from them.

I love the reference to Macchiavelli's The Prince, it definitely suits.

[PatrickStormborn]

I beg to differ. Dany came to loathe slavery, on seeing it in practice. But, she's no revolutionary. She is absolutely convinced that her family has the right to rule Westeros; that their enemies are Usurpers' Dogs; that society should be ruled by nobles, who have servants, and whom the Small Folk defer to.

Even in Mereen, she considers it entirely correct that the nobility should remain in power, that freed slaves and small folk should work for them, and that Irri should come to her bed, when she is "summoned, " and "pushed away" if she fails to please. If she does destroy the Mereeese nobility, it will be because they threaten her rule, not because she thinks there shouldn't be nobility.

I have to disagree with this assessment.

What we see with Dany in ADwD is that she is the biggest supporter of revolutionary ideals in the whole series. Yet, at the same time, society has brainwashed her into thinking some things are acceptable, so she switches between being a revolutionary Breaker of Shackles and a standard monarch upholding the views of her society. Dany naturally questions what goes on around her, but like anyone in her position she doesn't think to question everything.

As Winter's Knight said earlier in the thread, Dany had a council of freed slaves in Meereen, led by a freed woman. Clearly Dany's time in Slaver's Bay has led to bigger changes than we've seen in Westeros for hundreds of years!

[Castel]

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.

Which is why Tywin generally gave the lands to people born from there no?

Like I said, unusual circumstances. Who would have thought that Robb was skilled at warfare. Ignore that for a second and Tywin has probably burned the riverlands, successfully besieged Riverrun and gotten hostages to end the warfare.

The only other land to worry about is Lysa Arryn and she's has the smell of insanity and cowardice with her, regardless that's why he wanted to end the war quickly.

Fortunately for the Lannisters,the people who are mad at being pushed around were the ones being burnt in the riverlands. The main problem is that the war dragged on longer than expected. But even then a popular uprising was very unlikely excepting of course, the Stannis-led North. Everyone else was well in line or about to be put in line when he died.

As for Caesar and Tywin: both murdering nobles who saw fit to selectively pardon enemies because it suits them. *shrugs* You might want to get into a discussion about skill I wasn't even looking at it from that angle.

In my original post, I'd mentioned that what I foresee the most likely possibility is seeds or hints of what may change. The final book is dream of spring which would support the idea of a bittersweet ending. I don't expect to see dramatic change within the pages of the books themselves, I'm expecting to see signs that the world can be put back in to the balance it needs. At the end, I'm not entirely certain we will even see the rest of Westeros end up like Dorne to be honest. Not that I'd complain at all if this did happen.

What is balance and when did Westeros ever have it? The time before the huge wars? The time before the Targs? Because those have had very little effect on gender roles. In fact, those days were worse.

It's just my cynicism at play I guess.Dany definitely has the power to change things but honestly, I don't trust Martin. Every time there's something good, he slices, roasts or flays it to death :)

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

1 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.

2 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.

1. I prefer opinion based on available evidence. I'm going by what we know. Could there be other factors (like Castamere being a major bannerman who actually had a chance)? Certainly.

I am not claiming I know everything. I just use what is in the books (which in this case, is not much). Of course, there may be more to it that makes me 100% in the wrong. Then, I will admit I'm wrong and support the truth.

If you just want to leave it at "difference of opinions" that's fine with me.

2. I do. As someone else pointed out above, things can change rather quickly when there is a crisis. If this war leads to the death of a lot of male heirs, it could easily affect the gender power ratio. I don't think Westeros will suddenly become an equal society or all will become like Dorne, but I think improvement is a reasonable outcome.

You need to be like Macchiavelli's Prince, who accepts that in an ideal world, a ruler would be loved, as well as feared, but fear is better than love. But, by fear, he means that people fear to defy the Prince, not that they fear that he'll execute them without cause, or steal their property from them.

Machiavelli didn't even believe in the Prince. Pretty much his entire works both before and after the Prince says exactly the opposite. Many experts believe he was either a) trying to get in good with the people who had just tortured him (because torture really sucks) or B) he was trolling the Borgia.

In short, taking the Prince as a serious political guide is like taking the Colbert report as one.

Unfortunately, Machiavelli underestimated the eagerness some people have to support their own dickish behavior.

So in short, no. Dany should not take a page from the Prince.

Wasn't Cersei's Walk partly because of her other crimes as well, like having the previous High Septon killed?

I think she only admitted to the lesser crimes. It seems a bit light for killing the High Septon

[Castel]

Machiavelli didn't even believe in the Prince. Pretty much his entire works both before and after the Prince says exactly the opposite. Many experts believe he was either a) trying to get in good with the people who had just tortured him (because torture really sucks) or B) he was trolling the Borgia.

In short, taking the Prince as a serious political guide is like taking the Colbert report as one.

Unfortunately, Machiavelli underestimated the eagerness some people have to support their own dickish behavior.

So in short, no. Dany should not take a page from the Prince.

Can the Prince not be evaluated seperate from Machiavelli's previous works or beliefs. Apart from one or two outright falsehoods (I can't remember where offhead) it's not a bad work and can actually be useful, no matter what Machiavelli thought about the Borgias or democracy.

1. I prefer opinion based on available evidence. I'm going by what we know. Could there be other factors (like Castamere being a major bannerman who actually had a chance)? Certainly.

The problem is that I see no evidence at all for those wars. We have a song, and some statements from Gemma. Apart from that I draw a blank.

[Kittykatknits]

What is balance and when did Westeros ever have it? The time before the huge wars? The time before the Targs? Because those have had very little effect on gender roles. In fact, those days were worse.

It's just my cynicism at play I guess.Dany definitely has the power to change things but honestly, I don't trust Martin. Every time there's something good, he slices, roasts or flays it to death :)

No one has ever claimed that Westeros has had it. The seasons have been off since who knows when, noble institutions are failing (anyone else wonder what we will learn about the citadel?), and practices that are supposed to hold the culture together don't seem to work all that well.

Between several years of warfare, the arrival of a very bad winter, the Others, Aegon, Dany and her three dragons, it seems like what we know of history so far isn't going to compare to what may be coming.

For the record, I share your cynicism at times. It's why I focus on the idea of direction rather than great change.

[Scipio Africanus]

Machiavelli didn't even believe in the Prince.

You state this as fact but I believe there is still discussion in the academic community (which will never end) about your above statement.

[The Sleeper]

Like I said, unusual circumstances. Who would have thought that Robb was skilled at warfare. Ignore that for a second and Tywin has probably burned the riverlands, successfully besieged Riverrun and gotten hostages to end the warfare.

The only other land to worry about is Lysa Arryn and she's has the smell of insanity and cowardice with her, regardless that's why he wanted to end the war quickly.

Isn't Tywin's job to account for different scenarios and possibilties? Let's examine iformation that we know Tywin had at his disposal..

The Riverlands, the North and the Vale are closely allied. In fact at the time he invaded, the North and the Vale were in the direct control of the Tully sisters.

The North had participated in two successful campaigns over the last fifteen years and had experienced soldiers and officers in the ranks.

The Vale had in its ranks the Balckfish and Bronze Yohn Royce either of whom could have assumed the command should the Vale enter the war.

The armies of the three kingdoms combined outnumbered him by a wide margin.

Anyone besieging Riverrun is vulnerable.

Walder Frey hates him.

The King does not particularly like him.

The King's brothers have political aspiration that put them at odds with Lannister influence on the Throne.

The results in the field, that were due to his decisions: he lost half his army, the initiative and got pinned.

Tywin before and during the Wot5K was as senseless and rash as Cersei had ever been.

[Castel]

Just a few things:

Tywin raided the riverlands while Robert was around to arbitrate so he could get Tyrion back. And he probably would have gotten Tyrion back knowing Robert. He went to war after Robert died. Because he had to.Robert dying was very unexpected and once he was dead, it was better to just knock the riverlands out quickly. As for the North, successful campaigns or no, they need a strong leader, otherwise you end up with people like the Greatjon bickering as they did even with Robb.

[Scipio Africanus]

He went to war after Robert died. Because he had to.Robert dying was very unexpected and once he was dead, it was better to just knock the riverlands out quickly.

Oh yes it was oh so unexpected especially for the grieving widow Cercei Lannister...

Please. :rolleyes:

Can't remember where I read it (SoS?) but I thought initially Tywin sent out Gregor to capture or preferbably kill Eddard as the latter was expected to ride against the raiding in the Riverlands. But that Jamie (inadvertedly) screwed things up by getting Eddard injured, after which the latter sent Beric Dondarrion.

If that is true well, I somehow doubt Tywin was the pacifist here. ;)

[Kittykatknits]

Can't remember where I read it (SoS?) but I thought initially Tywin sent out Gregor to capture or preferbably kill Eddard as the latter was expected to ride against the raiding in the Riverlands. But that Jamie (inadvertedly) screwed things up by getting Eddard injured, after which the latter sent Beric Dondarrion.

If that is true well, I somehow doubt Tywin was the pacifist here. ;)

Yes, his hope was to lure Ned out in to the field by using Gregor. IIRC, his plan was to capture Ned in order to have a hostage of his own but I may be wrong about that. Jaime took away that opportunity and I think Ned also realized what Tywin was doing.