The Women Of GoT: A Queen Conquers...Or Does She?

[Pete Martell]

I had no idea whether to put this as book talk or not, but ultimately I decided not to for the moment. If a mod wants to change this or if we should start a thread for both shows, I'll be happy to do that. 

 

You know, when I first got into GoT, I remember a gifset going around that was used to prove the show had "strong women." The gifset was Cersei ordering her men to move in a circle around Littlefinger and to nearly kill him. "Power is power."

 

Imagine my surprise when I watched the scene and my only interpretation was that rather than Cersei being "strong," she was terrified. She had no real power, as her son had broken away from her, her father was at Harrenhaal and her beloved twin could be dead at any moment for all she knew, and worst of all she was being put in check by her loathed brother. Littlefinger mocked her for depravity, he took her as weak, and she lashed out.

 

At that time, I feel like the show had a wide variety of female characters, some of whom were strong and capable, others were nightmares. All of them were flawed, but most were flawed on their own terms. 

 

I can't help comparing that period to what we have now, where I feel like female characters are being minimized or being put in holding patterns, or being defined almost entirely by men, and the few interactions they do have seem excessively juvenile (Margaery/Cersei) or brief and plot-driven (Sansa and Brienne).

 

Rather than give a long list (because I feel like that's all I do at this point), I was wondering what your thoughts are, good or bad.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Pete Martell

[Holmbo]

Interesting with a female characters thread. I remember reading one on television without pity back when it was still up.

In which way do you feel like the women were capable back in season 2 but is not now? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing just want to understand better what you mean.

My thought on the female characters of the book and the show is that the praise for the female characters rest on the fact that they are many. Imagine if all the main characters were men except for like the one obligatory female character. That character somehow represents the shows view on women. If she's a Cersei it's like a statement that all women are evil shrews. If she's a Sansa it's that all women are week victims. If she's a Brienne women only have a place in the society of they take on a male role. By having so many female characters it's possible for the story to explore extremes without people feeling offended.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Holmbo

[Maximum Taco]

The thing about Cersei is that although she enjoys wielding power, she is never inherently powerful. All her power derives from her relationship with men.

 

She's powerful because...

Robert is her husband

Jaime is her brother

Tywin is her father

Joffrey is her son

 

Now she's powerless because all the strong men in her family are dead. Littlefinger says as much to Roose Bolton. Cersei is no longer a player or a factor due to the deaths of Robert, Tywin and Joffrey, and the maiming of Jaime.

 

The only actually powerful woman in the series is Daenerys, and possibly soon Sansa.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Maximum Taco

[Pete Martell]

In which way do you feel like the women were capable back in season 2 but is not now? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing just want to understand better what you mean.

 

We saw Dany leading her ragged group to safety, and then defeating Pee Pee, Xao, Doreah, etc. when they tried to kill her. She needed Jorah's counsel, but she also made sure he knew there was a line he wouldn't be able to cross.

 

Now, she's trying to make her own decisions, but they are poor ones, and we're supposed to hold our breath to wait until Jorah, Tyrion, and Varys come to save the day. 

 

We saw Catelyn trying to cope with her husband's murder as best she could and struggling to deal with her son not wanting to fully heed her.

 

Now, we see Ellaria Sand losing her partner reduced to her hissing at Doran Martell about how those Lannisters have to pay, as he essentially swats her away like a fly. 

 

We saw Brienne following Catelyn's wishes. We then saw her continuing to try to do right by Catelyn's daughters and memory. 

 

Now that has been quickly swept away, after both girls were "protected" by the men they were with, and Brienne is mostly reduced to sitting around talking about happier days with Renly.

 

We saw Sansa trying to survive King's Landing as best she could, and while she did have to rely on The Hound for protection, she also had to hone her own skills, and she had support from Shae, along with a complex relationship with Cersei.

 

Now D&D repeatedly talk only about how much she has been "taught" by Littlefinger (which is a mystery to me, as he was barely around when she learned her most painful life lessons and his brilliant educational skills amount to having her cover up his sloppy murder and then stroll around the North in plain sight with a bad Hot Topic makeover as her only cover), and she is pushed into a relationship with Ramsay that she begs to avoid. Sansa is as much of a victim as ever, only now in an even more discomfiting way, because they seem to be trying to couch her passivity and her being taken advantage of as some brilliant master class at the hands of Wandering Accent Baelish. 

 

We saw Margaery trying to adapt to being a queen, trying to be wiser than her years.

 

Now we see Margaery sitting around cackling with her handmaidens about her sex life and about what a loser Cersei is, just in case we didn't already know that they are rivals or that Cersei is at an all time low.

[Holmbo]

I think my post would be to long if I were to reply to each part of your post Pete so I'll respond with a categorisation.

Women I think seem:

Less capable now than in the beginning of the show:

Margaery

Dany

And Cat, Ygritte and Ros because they are dead.

And Yara because she's nowhere to be seen.

The same:

Arya

Cersei

Melisandre

Shireen

More capable:

Brienne

Sansa

I'm not counting Talisa, Missandei or Shae because I don't think their capabilities are ever considered.

We'll have to see if the sand snakes can be considered to way up for the female characters we've lost.

[Holmbo]

I also want to comment specifically about Dany that I have thought about the problematics about her seemingly needing a man by her side to guide her. I'm not sure I consider it a problem because I really think it comes down to age rather than gender. But that does bring in the problem that there are tons of mature wise men in this story but really only one woman so far. Most of the women are either dead or lack experience.

[Constantinople]

The thing about Cersei is that although she enjoys wielding power, she is never inherently powerful. All her power derives from her relationship with men.

Men have more opportunities, but no one is inherently powerful, particularly in a system largely based on hereditary principles (hence Tywin's constant yapping about the family).

Tommen is only king because his "father" was Robert.

Robert promoted himself from Lord of Storm's End to King, but that's never going to happen if his father (or grandfather or whomever) wasn't Lord of Storm's End before him.

 

Now she's powerless because all the strong men in her family are dead. Littlefinger says as much to Roose Bolton. Cersei is no longer a player or a factor due to the deaths of Robert, Tywin and Joffrey, and the maiming of Jaime.

Cersei may no longer be Queen Regent, but she's still presiding over the Small Council. And though she may not official be Hand of the King, she's the de facto Hand.

Cersei appointed Qyburn as Master of Whispers (or is it Whisperers).

Cersei's the one who appointed Mace Tyrell as Master of Coin

Cersei's the one deciding how to respond to the Sparrow's treatment of the High Septon.

 

The only actually powerful woman in the series is Daenerys, and possibly soon Sansa.

Daenerys's power ultimately derives from her last name. If her last name weren't Targaryen, no dragon eggs.

[Shanna]

I think it's a mistake to consider strength only in terms of power. I think strong characters are often flawed, sometimes abused, sometimes downright awful (Cersei) and sometimes lacking in power. Even if you took away everything that makes her powerful she is till a strong character.

I don't love all of the adaptation choices, but that's a book/show issue.

But I think this show has so many interesting female characters who have their own motivations and powers. Brienne is hardly only talking about renly because she mentioned him. She has clear goal, strengths and weaknesses. As does pod. That is what makes them strong characters.

Danys plot I see not as a woman failing (I think most leaders fail at something on this show). I don't see taking advice as a weakness, I consider it a strength. Her whole plot to me is about how ruling is different and harder than conquering. That's not a male/ female issue.

[SunDevil]

I like the shows treatment of women because they aren’t just worried about love. Whether they are successful or not, the pursuit of power is more about family, honor, and freedom.  They are just more interesting than first season Sansa, or pretty much any of their book counterparts.

[Lady S.]

I think my post would be to long if I were to reply to each part of your post Pete so I'll respond with a categorisation.

Women I think seem:

Less capable now than in the beginning of the show:

And Cat, Ygritte and Ros because they are dead.

And Yara because she's nowhere to be seen.

I had to chuckle at this classification. Dead ladies really are not empowered. 

 

Anyway, my main thoughts on this go back to Cersei. I don't mind the show making her smarter, but I think their efforts in earlier seasons to make her more sympathetic were thoroughly wasted, especially since when you really think about it most of those instances devolve to Cersei's self-pity, not any good quality to redeem her as a person. Her weaknesses should be shown without us having to feel too sorry for her, we can recognize Cersei as another victim of feudal patriarchy while seeing her set apart from other women as one who victimizes others even worse than she ever was. She's now the last Lannister baddie with Tywin and Joff gone, and I think she should have been allowed to fully be one all along. The fact that people are still confused about what murders she committed and how much she loved Joffrey is a big failure of the writing to me, and I think it hurt the story post-PW when her unconditional love for Joffrey and forgiveness of all his obvious faults should be clear as her driving motivation. (I think Jack Gleeson did a great job of showing Joffrey as a psycho with human vulnerability, Harry Lloyd and Alfie Allen's Viserys and Theon accomplished similar things by letting us condemn their characters' actions while recognizing their patheticness and the circumstances that made them that way. Kate Dickie also did great in her last scene as Lysa, a rather thankless role, and one I like to think of as Bizarro-Cersei, but I think her 5-episode run painted a more consistent portrayal than regular Cersei's 5 years of screen time. No one is that confused about who Lysa killed/tried to kill and how much she loved Robin.) But then, the one time show Cersei actually was a victim, during Septgate, she's apparently not meant to be since the directer's explanation was basically "bitch had it coming". So I don't think it's even that the showrunners really like Cersei but that they think a female villain should be softened more than a male villain ever would be. (I'm reminded of a certain recent Ben Affleck movie which generated discussion about the author/screenwriter's creation of the female villain mastermind. I think I'd like a Cersei like that character without the unrealistic super-cleverness. Or a character more like Atia of the Julii from HBO's Rome.)

 

I also see Dany as the only really empowered female character, but that's okay because it's not about the female characters themselves but the unfair patriarchy they live in that only allows them power in certain ways, and ostracizes those like Brienne who try to assert themselves in a path deemed only for men. Even Dany only found power at first through her husband and his unborn son, and the independent power she achieved after Drogo's death was due to the birth of the world first dragons in a century, a rather freak occurrence and something she wouldn't have achieved without being a Targ gifted with three dragon eggs. 

[Meredith Quill]

A topic discussing strong women in GoT that doesn't mention Olenna Tyrell is heresy.

[Holmbo]

A topic discussing strong women in GoT that doesn't mention Olenna Tyrell is heresy.

I did mention her if not by name. She's the one wise female character.

[Constantinople]

A topic discussing strong women in GoT that doesn't mention Olenna Tyrell is heresy.

I did mention her if not by name. She's the one wise female character.

 

Westeros, or Essos for that matter, isn't exactly littered with wise men either.

Still men, in general, have many more opportunities to share or impose their idiocies on others.

[Shanna]

I also see Dany as the only really empowered female character, but that's okay because it's not about the female characters themselves but the unfair patriarchy they live in that only allows them power in certain ways, and ostracizes those like Brienne who try to assert themselves in a path deemed only for men.

If your standards for power are that high that someone has to literally be queen to meet it, than it not about patriarchy at all because most men are not meeting that standard.

Brienne throughout the show has been doing pretty much exactly what she wanted to do. Arya is a child, and been forced into Going along with people she didn't want because of circumstance but she's currently doing what she wishes. Yes she's serving but all men must serve and it's in service of a larger goal.

And yes, Olenna rocks but Margarey is doing as she wishes too. She wishes to be queen. And now she is.

There are different kinds of power.

[Pete Martell]

A topic discussing strong women in GoT that doesn't mention Olenna Tyrell is heresy.

 

I love Olenna because of Diana Rigg and some of her individual scenes, but letting her son and grandchildren behave so incompetently in King's Landing makes me feel like she's less of a force and more of an entertaining guest character who has no real impact when she isn't around.

[Meredith Quill]

That isn't relevant to her being a strong woman. In fairness, you could make the same, if not stronger, argument of Tywin and his children and grandchild.

[lion10]

In the show, Missandei said "All men must die" and Daenerys said "But we are not men".  I'm pretty sure that it was supposed to be an "oh snap" kind of moment in terms of female empowerment but I didn't understand what she meant by that.  It's a clever turning of the phrase but on a deeper level, they're all human and they will die/can be killed just like any other man, woman, and child.  Could someone explain to me how they interpreted that scene?

 

There's different types of power: hard and soft power.  I think the show does a good job of mixing up the type of power the women have.  Brienne, Ygritte, and the Sand Snakes have hard power and Arya's on the path to having hard power.  Margarey, Olenna, Daenerys, and Cersei have softer power that still can have deadly effects.  In fact, the show has shown that soft power is often far more effective than hard power.  With hard power, you can cut a man in half but with soft power you can command armies.  The only danger being that soft power relies on influencing others.  If the people you think you have control over decide one day that they've had enough of your shit, you're finished.  That can be seen with Robert's Rebellion against Aerys.

[SilverShadow]

In the show, Missandei said "All men must die" and Daenerys said "But we are not men".  I'm pretty sure that it was supposed to be an "oh snap" kind of moment in terms of female empowerment but I didn't understand what she meant by that.  It's a clever turning of the phrase but on a deeper level, they're all human and they will die/can be killed just like any other man, woman, and child.  Could someone explain to me how they interpreted that scene?

 

I think it's partially kind of a Tolkien/Shakespeare call-back. Shakespeare, in Macbeth, had the prophecy "No man of woman born" can kill the title character. The dude who does it was brought into the world via Medieval C-Section. Tolkien thought he ignored the more obvious answer, hence why the head Ring Wraith, who "no man" can kill is felled by a lady (with an assist from a Hobbit.) So if no man can do X, a woman could. And if all men X, a woman is exempt.

 

I don't think Dany literally meant she and Missendi(Sp?) were immortal. It was just a more poetic version of Arya's "not today."

[Jaded Sapphire]

In the show, Missandei said "All men must die" and Daenerys said "But we are not men".  I'm pretty sure that it was supposed to be an "oh snap" kind of moment in terms of female empowerment but I didn't understand what she meant by that.  It's a clever turning of the phrase but on a deeper level, they're all human and they will die/can be killed just like any other man, woman, and child.  Could someone explain to me how they interpreted that scene?

While I do think it was indirectly meant to be statement of female empowerment a la SilverShadow's reply, I always thought it specifically referenced Dany's plan at the end of the same episode. After she's given the whip that designates her as the owner/leader of the Unsullied, she makes sure to tell them to "Kill all men holding a whip." 

[Holmbo]

While I do think it was indirectly meant to be statement of female empowerment a la SilverShadow's reply, I always thought it specifically referenced Dany's plan at the end of the same episode. After she's given the whip that designates her as the owner/leader of the Unsullied, she makes sure to tell them to "Kill all men holding a whip."

I never thought about that but it make a lot of sense.

In the book GRRM has some characters north of the wall make a similar joke so I was thinking perhaps the show took inspiration from that.

[Lady S.]

If your standards for power are that high that someone has to literally be queen to meet it, than it not about patriarchy at all because most men are not meeting that standard.

Brienne throughout the show has been doing pretty much exactly what she wanted to do. Arya is a child, and been forced into Going along with people she didn't want because of circumstance but she's currently doing what she wishes. Yes she's serving but all men must serve and it's in service of a larger goal.

Can Brienne be a knight and lead an army like Jaime? If Bronn married Lollys would he have to rely on her for power the way a female consort would? That's the patriarchy. Isn't Marg's freedom dependent on having a father like Mace instead of a control freak like Tywin? Didn't Arya get where she is through the help of a succession of men, and at one point survive by hiding her gender? Dany's different because she is no longer dependent on a husband or in any danger of being force marched down a wedding aisle again. Of course non-noblemen are in some ways disadvantaged but they can work their way up like Bronn or Davos. A woman of any class has her limits, except for maybe in Dorne, as evidenced by the King's mother still being seen as a broodmare around the same time Edmure Tully had to be persuaded instead of ordered to marry a Frey. Even Olenna admits that men have the power when she laments that fact to Cersei, she can boss her son around in most matters but also claims he crowned Renly against her advice.

[Holmbo]

Can Brienne be a knight and lead an army like Jaime? If Bronn married Lollys would he have to rely on her for power the way a female consort would? That's the patriarchy. Isn't Marg's freedom dependent on having a father like Mace instead of a control freak like Tywin? Didn't Arya get where she is through the help of a succession of men, and at one point survive by hiding her gender? Dany's different because she is no longer dependent on a husband or in any danger of being force marched down a wedding aisle again. Of course non-noblemen are in some ways disadvantaged but they can work their way up like Bronn or Davos. A woman of any class has her limits, except for maybe in Dorne, as evidenced by the King's mother still being seen as a broodmare around the same time Edmure Tully had to be persuaded instead of ordered to marry a Frey. Even Olenna admits that men have the power when she laments that fact to Cersei, she can boss her son around in most matters but also claims he crowned Renly against her advice.

Tywin is the reason Jaime got to lead an army. He was the head of one of the great houses and choose Jaime as one of his subordinates. Only the head of each house is free to make decisions for themselves (and even those have to obey their king and please their bannermen). The pathriarcial inheritance system makes it much more likely that a man will be the head of the family and that this man will rely on other men for support. But in this society very few people have much freedom or opportunity.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Holmbo

[Lady S.]

I think Jaime being Tywin's son and not just his offspring played a part there too, if he'd been Janie Lannister, Uncle Kevan would be the one facing Robb Stark. Jaime, as an able-bodied nobleman, is born at the top of the food chain and has more advantages than either of his siblings, hence why he stood up to Tywin back in 4.01 before either of them did. He was not the head of House Lannister but Tywin still couldn't control him the way he wanted to.

 

A man can rise higher through straight inheritance, killing the right people, or marrying up but a woman would probably still face shit for her gender even if she became Head of House, again with the exception of Dany and possibly Dornish ladies. I mean, personally, I don't see Sansa ever wielding the power Robb or Ned did even if she did gain possession of Winterfell, and that's a big if since one of the male heirs should come back on the scene at some point. The whole execution scene in the pilot carries the implication that there has never been a ruling Lady of Winterfell/QitN, or that if there ever was her husband or grown son handled the killing business, since a) the scene is all boys and I'm guessing a daughter would have to be an only child to show up there, and b) Ned's greatsword is way too huge for a non-Brienne sized woman to handle. People brought up that Dany didn't swing the sword in her beheading scene, but that's ignoring that if she did the scene would probably be as bloody, if not even bloodier, than Theon beheading Ser Rodrik. Personally, I think I'd rather die by a competent headsman than by a judge without the same physical strength. 

 

Later on, Ned tells Arya that Sansa owed it to Joffrey to be obedient and loyal to him, and in their next scene he tries to be optimistic about the opportunities Bran can still have as a cripple, but when Arya asks if she can do any of those things he tells her her husband and sons can. And with recent talk of Jon's bastardy, I have to wonder if anyone would criticize Ned for not legitimizing a bastard named Joan Snow. One of the most loving husbands and fathers in Westeros is still operating within a sexist and very old-fashioned framework where a 10yo boy should get used to watching men lose their heads while he thinks 13yo Sansa is still young enough to play with dolls.

 

Not to turn this into a debate on modern feminism but can we agree everything is still not equal in our world now? Then can we agree that the glass ceiling would be even higher and harder to break in a medieval-style patriarchy? The way I see it, pretty much every female character would have more freedom as a man the same way that Tyrion would have more power if he were Jaime-sized and Bran would would have greater freedom with working legs. (I also don't think it's a coincidence that most of the surviving male characters fit somewhere under the cripples, bastards, and broken things umbrella. The only heterosexual, legit-born, able-bodied, completely unmutilated, non-fugitive noblemen are King Tommen (only unofficially a bastard), Roose Bolton, Stannis (who is still set apart by a foreign religion), Littlefinger, Barry Selmy, Alliser Thorne, Meryn Trant, Podrick Payne, Myrcella's Dornish boyfriend, Uncle Kevan, and Mace Tyrell, and of those only Stannis and Littlefinger are primary characters and both would consider themselves outcasts of society. There's an outcast theme in evidence which the female characters fit just by having the wrong genitalia in this dog-eat-dog only the strong survive world. Meanwhile female characters are much more likely to be raped or just killed rather than maimed or mutilated. Probably because the male maimings (The Hound, Jaime, Theon etc. etc.) are meant to be de-humanizing or emasculating as well as brutal, and to fit those male characters into the cripples and broken things criteria.)

Edited April 30, 2015 by Lady S.

[Shanna]

I think the emasculation of so many men on this show is on par or worse than the rapes and we have multiple prominent characters who have suffered it.

My point is not that everything is the same for the female characters as the men. But I think you are downplaying the power they do have. Yes, arya had the help of some male characters, but it's because she's a little girl. Look at gendry...he was kidnapped at Melisandre's will and would have been killed if it weren't for Davos. Hot pie was more of less given to that inn. This isn't our world and everyone's power has to do with who they know, their family name, who they can manipulate...dany is the same in some ways because she is targaryen. The only thing that makes her different to an extent is her dragons.

I know brienne keeps saying she's not a knight, but wasn't she renlys? I forget what that title was...

Edited April 30, 2015 by Shanna

[lion10]

Can Brienne be a knight and lead an army like Jaime? If Bronn married Lollys would he have to rely on her for power the way a female consort would? That's the patriarchy. Isn't Marg's freedom dependent on having a father like Mace instead of a control freak like Tywin? Didn't Arya get where she is through the help of a succession of men, and at one point survive by hiding her gender? Dany's different because she is no longer dependent on a husband or in any danger of being force marched down a wedding aisle again. Of course non-noblemen are in some ways disadvantaged but they can work their way up like Bronn or Davos. A woman of any class has her limits, except for maybe in Dorne, as evidenced by the King's mother still being seen as a broodmare around the same time Edmure Tully had to be persuaded instead of ordered to marry a Frey. Even Olenna admits that men have the power when she laments that fact to Cersei, she can boss her son around in most matters but also claims he crowned Renly against her advice.

 

 

Non-noblemen do have this opportunity, but they're also far more likely to be killed than women are.  If your lord decides to war against another noble, as a man you'll be called up to fight with absolutely no say in if you want to or not.  Bronn and Davos are the lucky ones: there are far more non-noblemen that end up hacked to death on some nameless field.  Women by and large don't face that danger in Westeros.  There is sexual violence which is absolutely heinous but honestly, I'd rather be raped than have my throat slit.

[Holmbo]

Lady S I don't disagree with women having less opportunities than men. I think we can all agree about that.

What I was responding to was the idea that Dany is the only empowered female character in the story because she is the only one who's not dependent on any men for her power. My point is that by this definition almost no characters in this story has power because they are dependent on other men.

IMO Margaery, Melisandre and Cersei all have some amount of power at present and so does Brienne though of another kind. Is their hold on power uncertain? Sure it could change at any moment. But they do have it as of right now.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Holmbo

[DigitalCount]

And also, I was under the impression that Bronn is essentially relying on Lollys for power. Even if she's a bit dull, her name commands power. We saw way back when Bronn was asked his father's name he said "you wouldn't know him" in an interesting parallel to Qyburn's "doesn't matter" more recently. His children would probably have been named Stokeworth if not for Jaime's offer. And Lyanna Mormont is Lady of Bear Island at the age of 10. The only way her kids won't be Mormonts is if she marries someone like Rickon.

I think Constantinople had the truth of it. If you're a powerful man, you get to impose idiocy. This is not a great world for powerful idiots. Unlike most I don't think Ned was a huge dum-dum, but he wasn't exactly a genius. And of course, as a bookend, the most powerful man in the world just received his due for allowing the one thing that made him stupid to dominate his common sense. But you can impose idiocy as a woman too. So basically I'm not really sure what point I'm trying to make, but it seems a bit more complex than "men have power, women eat dirt."

Edited April 30, 2015 by DigitalCount

[Shanna]

Little Lyanna is a bad ass too!

I've been thinking this morning what might have happened if Robert had married a Margarey type instead of Cersei...

[DigitalCount]

Well, we at least know for a fact that his love for Lyanna Stark wouldn't have mattered one whit to her, so there's that. Margaery seems more savvy than Cersei ever was regarding that at least, though her need to stick twigs through the bars of the lion's cage seems likely to get her sliced to ribbons.

[Hecate7]

Tywin is the reason Jaime got to lead an army. He was the head of one of the great houses and choose Jaime as one of his subordinates. Only the head of each house is free to make decisions for themselves (and even those have to obey their king and please their bannermen). The pathriarcial inheritance system makes it much more likely that a man will be the head of the family and that this man will rely on other men for support. But in this society very few people have much freedom or opportunity.

 

Can Cersei lead an army? No. It's not enough to have the right father. Gender trumps all. Even now, when Cersei is technically the head of the Lannister family, she is not taken seriously, and Kevan and his branch of the family refuse to follow her orders. She cannot lead an army. She can pick a man to lead it, and pray he doesn't double cross her.

[Holmbo]

Can Cersei lead an army? No. It's not enough to have the right father. Gender trumps all. Even now, when Cersei is technically the head of the Lannister family, she is not taken seriously, and Kevan and his branch of the family refuse to follow her orders. She cannot lead an army. She can pick a man to lead it, and pray he doesn't double cross her.

People keep getting away from the context of this post. Its purpose was to be a reply to the statement that only women who did not rely on others for their power could be empowered. I was pointing out that most men too in the story rely on others to yield power. Jaime as an example because he only commanded those armies because Tywin choose it.

[Shanna]

Even now, when Cersei is technically the head of the Lannister family, she is not taken seriously, and Kevan and his branch of the family refuse to follow her orders.

But she's not the head of the lannisters family. She's the kings mom.

The reason Kevin does not respect her is not because she's a woman. That's what she thinks, but Tywin told her quote plainly that it's because she's not as smart as she thinks she is. Cersei isn't wise and she isn't kind. All she is is ruthless.

[Constantinople]

Even Olenna admits that men have the power when she laments that fact to Cersei, she can boss her son around in most matters but also claims he crowned Renly against her advice.

Perhaps.

Sometimes I wonder if that's just something Olenna tells outsiders (Cersi, Sansa) so that Olenna always gets the credit and Mace gets the blame.

In any case, I wouldn't take anything Olenna says to Cersei as gospel. Olenna is very much trying to manipulate Cersei into thinking that Olenna is a helpless old woman.

 

 

Can Cersei lead an army? No. It's not enough to have the right father. Gender trumps all. Even now, when Cersei is technically the head of the Lannister family, she is not taken seriously, and Kevan and his branch of the family refuse to follow her orders. She cannot lead an army. She can pick a man to lead it, and pray he doesn't double cross her.

I think there's some truth to the old line "Equality isn't when a female Einstein gets promoted to assistant vice president. Equality is when a female schmuck gets ahead as fast 4as a male schmuck".

In that sense, Cersei is to Lannister is to Kevan as Mace is to Tyrell is to Olenna.

That's why sometimes I think it's more helpful to look at a larger groups instead of just an individual.

The Small Council, for example, did not have a single female member until Robert dropped dead.

When Ned first arrived in King's Landing as Hank, I think the Small Council consisted of

Ned

Renly

Pycelle

Littlefinger

Varys

When Tyrion first arrived as Acting Hand, the Small Council consisted of

Cersei

Tyrion

Pycelle

Littlefinger

Varys

Janos Slynt

Last season, very briefly, the Small Council consisted of

Tywin

Cersei

Oberyn

Mace Tyrell

Pycell

Varys

I may have forgotten some members, but I'm confident if I did, the missing person was a he.

Also, according to a chat that Jorah & Barristan Selmy had back in Season 3, the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard is traditionally a member of the Small Council as well.

[Holmbo]

I wonder if we will see Margaery on the council. I'm not sure exactly what everyone's official positions are but if Tommen decides to go and to bring Margaery along Cersei couldn't stop him I think.

I was thinking some more about the question about what is the most determinate of who gets power and my view is that it is.

1. The family one belongs to (and ones place in the succession for leadership of that family)

2. Being male

3. Ability

So the most powerful would be the ones having all three but one could get along with two under the right circumstances.

[Lady S.]

I'm bumping this thread to discuss sex and marriage since I don't think my thoughts can be confined to any one character or episode. Disclaimer: I make no claims to being a professional historian, and some of this is Google research because I'm not going to spend hours in an actual library to write a thesis for an internet message board.

Marital rape is a modern concept, it doesn't mean women only stopped being broodmares and sex slaves in the 1970s. The Church was a major influence on marriage in our world, and the Pope was not above siding with wives when interfering in marriages even if the word rape was never use, powerful women and their families could appeal to the Pope as a marriage counselor. Divorce was rare, but some women were granted annulments on the basis on their husbands' shittiness, or in cases like Eleanor of Aquitane's first marriage or the real Lucrezia Borgia's first marriage granted annulments solely on the basis of having more influence than their husbands. (The duty to consummate was based not on wives being property, but on procreation which meant charges of impotency could be used to annul a marriage.) Fun divorce fact: Henry VIII famously made his own church to end his first marriage, but before that, his younger sister Margaret was able to get the Pope to end her second marriage. And nunneries were basically early battered women's shelters, and I'd imagine Septa-houses are the same thing in this world. If all wives were just locked in their bedchambers as sex slaves and babymakers, no woman would choose to be a wife instead of a nun. Wives were investments as long as their brothers/fathers were still in power, and furthermore had other purposes beyond procreation in running the household and holding down the fort in their husbands' absence, so all husbands treating women as disposable the way Walder Frey would is completely impractical to forming working marriage alliances. And class mattered a hell of a lot more than gender, since chivalry encourages knights to rape peasants during wartime while treating noblewomen with more respect. Which isn't to say this was actually reliably followed, but that was the societal expectation just like a knight faithfully serving his lord/king was also part of the honor code. Feudalism was fucked up, but it wasn't anarchy. Men have had mothers since the dawn of time and mothers have had reason not to want their sons to be total assholes all the time. Treating wives badly relies on treating other people even worse. Pyp, Grenn, and the other commoners basically forced to the wall to avoid starvation or unjust punishment may have had sexual freedom to an extent but they sure as hell didn't have more rights than a noblewoman, not to mention Mycah the butcher's son and all of the more numerous unnamed male casualties of class warfare. Just as noblemen's bastards being born without much rights is a direct consequence of men being more freely allowed to engage in adultery while wives were important because of their designated status as official babymamas. Able-bodied heterosexual noblemen have more intrinsic recognized power than anyone but they can't treat everyone below them as nothing more than property, else the many would have overrun the few a long time ago. It's all part of a system to keep everyone in their place, noblewomen weren't just expected to blindly accept their lot in life because men were stronger.

We like to think that things were always just worse "back then" because it means we can think of ourselves as better off in every way to justify society's many ever-present flaws, but history is not a linear line of progress. For instance, there was no ruling queen of all England until the Tudor era, but there were ruling Queens in England before the Norman Conquest. (For those who watch Vikings, Kween Krazypants is not based on one specific real person, but looking around wikipedia I can see that there were some historical influences.) Arranged marriages still exist in some parts of the world today as they always have and some couples are perfectly happy that way, so saying that a woman not getting the final say in who she marries equals marital rape every night is a huge generalization. Assuming that there was only one woman in every generation during medieval times who miraculously achieved some agency before being burned to death as a witch is also a hugely unfair generalization. Why should psychopaths like Ramsay Bolton be more historically commonplace than matriarchs like Olenna? That's like thinking most medieval monarchs were like Joffrey or the Mad King, as if monarchy could be a sustaining institution if that kind of behavior was commonplace.

 

The idea that pre-modern women were not even supposed to enjoy sex is a myth as far as I'm aware. Yeah, the Church wouldn't want people trying out the Kama Sutra, but sex itself wasn't meant to be a punishment for original sin every night either, that was childbirth. The idea of the female orgasm goes back to ancient times. Ever heard of Todd Akin and his legitimate rape can't get you pregnant theory? That thinking dates back to the 3rd century philosopher/physician Galen's belief that sexual "heat" and mutual pleasure was a vital part of procreation. The idea was that male and female reproductive systems were mirror images so both parties had to reach climax for the act to work as intended. Which of course is bad for rape denial, but also means that European teachings on babymaking used to actually encourage men to at least try to pleasure their wives. Fun fact: the word clitoris takes its root from a Greek verb relating to titillation for the purposes of pleasure. Religious extremists who want no one to enjoy sex have always been in the minority. In fact, the infamous Puritanical early American immigrants categorized marital sex as "due benevolence", because it was meant to be performed with "good will and delight" from both parties. We've all heard about lying back and thinking of England but guess what? Not a substantiated Victorian-era quote, the Victorians enjoyed sex too even though they weren't as open about it, Queen Victoria's recently uncovered private diaries reveal she quite enjoyed her own sex life. Just like the idea of a feudal lord's right to sample his vassals' wives (the urban legend behind the story of Ramsay's conception) is also an unverified myth. Rape and spousal abuse have always existed and sadly, probably always will, it doesn't mean no one objected to it before they had the proper terminology to object with. Victims are still doubted and rapes denied by both genders in modern society, because cultural beliefs about sexism aren't defined by exact legal rights. 

 

No, I do not believe all medieval marriage consummations were fun times for the ladies, and coerced consummation probably did happen all too often. But that's still a far cry from every husband ripping off his wife's wedding dress and forcing himself on her, to the point that she had to be locked in the bedchamber to hide visible bruises. Khal Drogo at least had the patience to fully undress Dany on her wedding night and was later open to changing things up, acting as if he'd just never thought of what the woman role in sex would be. I got the feeling the Dothraki's problem was sex education moreso than sexual sadism being synonymous with lust. There, I've said my piece on the subject.

[Miss Dee]

Thanks Lady S. That's one of my issues with the "Historical accuracy!" justification. Constant rape and rape threats are necessary because in medieval times every man was an asshole rapist? That just didn't sound correct to me. They might have been hundreds of years ago but they were still human beings. And yes, human nature, okay.... but the thing is, human nature has more highs than it does lows. The highs are just not as much fun to gossip about.

[Holmbo]

And yes, human nature, okay.... but the thing is, human nature has more highs than it does lows. The highs are just not as much fun to gossip about.

Very true. Overall I think there's a growing problem in our society the view that humans are basically evil. That is simply not true. IMO the absolute majority of people are good. Though not always rational.

In a way it does get a bit ridicoulus in this show how many psychopaths born in nobel families there are. Joffrey, Ramsay, The mountain are all super extreme. Overall this show just ups the grimness of everything though. So we really should expect it to be more grim than actual medieval times.