Are Tolkiens Books Sexist?

[Tarlondeion Of Gondolin]

Are Tolkiens books sexist? I wasn't sure where to post this and as it stemmed from the film I thought this the best place, anyway:
I heard a woman on Newsnight (a news program in Britain) say that Arwen had been added to the film and that originally she was a dull woman who was at a feast, although this critic has obviously not read the book, still. My first thought was how dare she say this when their are such charachters as Eomer who defeated the Witch King and Galadriel but it has begun to dawn on me that maybe they are. None of the Fellowship are women and the majority of the characters are male, this can also be seen in the Silmarillion and in the Hobbit.

[red]

The books are not "sexist." And it is Eowyn, not Eomer, who defeats the Witch King.

If an author chooses to create a story and have mostly male characters, that is his prerogative. Who are we to judge?

-LADY red

[Elanor]

No, I don't think Tolkien was deliberately sexist at all. I saw a programme today though, that pointed out Tolkien was part of a society and class where boys went off to all-boys boarding schools at the age of 5. Then he went to Oxford, which was totally male-dominated at that time. So he probably didn't have much experience of women, and doubtless felt more comfortable writing about male characters, as he could empathise more easily.

[Zippo]

That is the craziest thing ive ever heard...

[Orald]

Back in ancient times women actually ruled all the kingdoms, fought the battles, and held all the jobs as well. A love story or an epic quest? Love story, duh. Battles where women wage war against those inferior male orcs, Southrons, and Easterlings should have been the norm, but why stop there, why not have the male Orcs, Southrons, and Easterlings sit at home and knit or bake cookies.

[RyAN the Pure Heart]

It is simply a reflection of the time the books were meant to take place in. Keep in mind that even in the united states weren't even really liberated until a very short time ago. And the majority of women around the world still arent. I think that the fact that tolkien didnt use women as much as men means nothing really. Now if he had put wmen down it would be a diffrent story of course, but he didnt.

RyAN

[Tarlondeion Of Gondolin]

It was just a thought, but I belive that they are not sexist. WHo are we to argue with one of the greatest writers of all times (in my view the greatest). I know it was Eowyn and I dont know why I said Eomer.

[amyrlis]

I won't complain at all about the so-called lack of strong female roles in LOTR, I guess because I disagree that there is a lack - Eowyn and Galadriel fill the void pretty well. And even though LOTR may not have many examples of Tolkien's strong female roles, I can think of many from his other writings, especially the Sil. Take Galadriel again, an Elf Princess who desires to rule her own kingdom, she sets out for Middle Earth, defying the Valar and leaving behind her father. Turgon's sister Aredhel - she refuses to remain in "hiding" in Gondolin and longs to roam the forests of Middle Earth. Luthien, who battles Sauron (in song) at the Isle of Werewolves (am I remembering that location correctly?). Idril, who had the foresight to prepare a secret passage out of Gondolin, then (with Tuor) lead the remnant of her people safely from its fall. Morwen Eledhwen raised her children and defended her home after Hurin was taken. Evil feared her, and did not disturb her home. She had a name like "Lady of ?", but I can't remember it. I almost forgot Melian the Maia, who protected all of Doriath with her power and gently influenced Thingol with her wisdom. And then there's Varda, Queen of the Stars, and Yavanna, Mother of the Earth. But, I do think that Eowyn is the "strongest" of them all. She was not a queen, not an elf or a maia with special powers or extraordinary beauty. She was just a girl who was misunderstood and alone, but in her most desperate hour she found the strength to face the greatest evil and defend her kin. Anyway, in my humble opinion, Tolkien really admired women and in his writings gave them a stronger role than that which they actually had in early 20th century society.

[Eve]

Thing is, Tolkien was writing into a sexist tradition: epic, which has never been known for its thundering gender equality, and I don't recall much in his other great love, Old English (although I have to admit my knowledge of the latter is limited to having read Gawain and translated a few bits from the New Testament umpteen times as part of my English course). You've got about as many strong women characters as you do in your average epic, really: I admit to not having read many in years, but Dido's about it in the Aeneid (Lavinia too? the problem is that I haven't translated more than Book 4, and haven't read the whole thing in even longer). As for the Iliad, I'm trying to remember any women at all, apart from the ones being fought over (Helen, Briseis, does Cressida come into this version?) who are hardly major role models (especially considering that the Trojan War was a trade dispute, and Achilles dosen't seem to have been that interested in women anyway).

To be honest, my opinion is that Tolkien wasn't the most talented chap when it came to writing from inside a woman's head. I find a lot of the personal relations side of his work not totally convincing: Aragorn and Arwen are hardly passionate romance of the year, now, are they. but in general, he's writing in a world where women aren't very important. on the one hand he did create this world himself, which gives him less excuse. on the other, it's not as if he created it out of thin air, and both the literary traditions he was writing into and his own lifestyle aren't particularly keen on matriarchal societies etc.

how much was known about the ancient matriarchies when Tolkien was around, does anyone know? quite curious. Always interests me the way Mary Renault portrays them in her writings - which are all, at least the ones I've read, from the point of view of a man! would have been fascinating if Tolkien had been writing about that sort of thing. Of course, he'd have produced completely different works, which would have presumably had to tackle the religious bases, the sexual side, the fertility/vegetation/sacrifice side of things. doesn't really sound like him.

hey, not trashing him because of this, no one can cover everything, and he did a mammoth job!

[Eve]

oh yes, and then see the interesting things Le Guin does with gender roles etc. in a similar genre.

What would have happened in a more equal Middle Earth? I don't know, maybe a wild Amazon tribe or two (or equivalent, naturally), the fighting women of [wherever] who fought to the death alongside their men. I still can't see more women in that book. I mean, for starters it's one of the most sexless books I've encountered, and adding more women might change things just a wee bit. You can just imagine the consternation when one of the Fellowship gets pregnant...or maybe Legolas and Gimli straining their friendship out of their passion for a female hobbit...or the terrifying thought of a female Gandalf with PMS (he's moody enough already!)...

for anyone who might take exception to the PMS joke, (a) I'm a woman myself after all and (b) have you seen that bit in "The Robber Bride" by Atwood where someone says, "You know those chemicals women have in them just before their period that make them moody? Well, men have those same chemicals in them ALL THE TIME." nice point, eh. so maybe Gandalf would just be less moody, but everyone would steer clear of him once a month...

[Serevian The Ranger]

uuuhh no

[Orald]

The people of Haleth actually had several Amazonian characteristics. And they were one of the three houses of Men which made up the Edain. There are small pieces about them in a few books, but in UT I think there is a little extra.

[Goldenwood]

Back in ancient times women actually ruled all the kingdoms, fought the battles, and held all the jobs as well. NOT. LOTRs plot was set in Middeveal England and Scandinavia, where women of all ranks were expected to bear heirs(or kids) for their husbands, make sure the houses ran smoothly or work in the fields. It was the men who were expected to go to wars AND even BEFORE Middeveal Women MIGHT have had mor epower but they DID NOT go to war and run countries.
Goldenwood

[Estella]

I think anyone who came up with Shelob could be a misogynist?? smilies/smile.gif
On the other hand, Eowyn is a great character. I like the way that Tolkien shows her yearning for Aragorn, who she obviously thinks is quite a hunk!

[Lush]

You know what? I understand we're all here because we think Tolkien was a great writer (Yeah, and then there are people like me, who are on page 15 of Book I of LotR), but maybe, he just wasn't sure about how to create a number of deep, interesting female characters. Maybe he didn't know women enough, and didn't want to screw it up. Today this may seem sexist, but back then, it might have been caution.
When I write, I want to know what it is I am describing, otherwise everything comes out trite, and hopelessly dull. I'm sure Tolkien felt the same way; while his stories are set in a place straight out of his imagination, the themes and emotions presented in the books are familiar in some shape or form to all of us. This is the reason why LotR has stood the test of time. I think it would be logical to conclude that Tolkien had to use his knowledge of his own world to create his characters, and maybe his understanding of women did not run deep enough for him to be able to flesh out more than a few decent females throughout the books, and that is why they seem so under-represented.
To use an example: When I read Stephen King, I am always amazed at the scope and depth of his male characters, yet the females almost always fall flat. Minus a few expcetions The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon being one of them, I almost wish he'd just concentrate on the men. But people will surely start crying out if that happens! Probably label him sexist!...See what I mean?
For now, I will just satisfy myself with the fact that the males in Tolkien's books are quite fascinating and entertaining, and will enjoy them to the foolest!

[QueenMag]

If you mean sexist in the sense of misogynistic, no, I don't believe Tolkien was. If you mean sexist in the sense that Tolkien fostered a particular set of stereotypes about the social role of women, I would say yes.

But this wasn't necessarily something bad. I agree with others who suggest he just didn't know how to create really complex women. But he doesn't denigrate them. If anything, he puts them on a pedestal.

[Snowflake]

I agree that he would have a hard time writing from a woman's point of view. I personally think if he had tried to write more women's parts, it might have brought down the entire series...

[Maeglin]

Come on!!!
The books arent sexistic! How do you reason when you say something like that!
If the women-chars in the books doesnt kill eachother as much as the male-chars does, doesnt mean that the books are sexistic! It probably means that the females in middle-earth are smarter than the men. smilies/tongue.gif

[Lush]

I don't think they were talking about women in terms of how many enemies they slew...As for me, reading over what Tolkien wrote about Lady Galadriel, I think all doubts about his attitude toward women may be erased by the Lothlorien chapters. Did he understand women? Not entirely. But I believe he admired them (us!).

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

I agree with Lush...and I don't know if any of us truly understand men either
*shrug*
smilies/smile.gif
He isn't sexist-the fact that many of the main characters in LOTR are male fits the story; and as others have pointed out, there are many women in the Sil.

[Elrian]

More likely is the era in which it was written. Equal rights wasn't heard of then, and women did not go off to war. Not many fantasy novels that I have read have many women charaters in them, so it wasn't just Tolkien. The ones Tolkien did have were very well written and very intruiging.

[Maeglin]

Okay. Sorry Lush... smilies/wink.gif
I thought of writing something like that Elrian! But I had a hard time writing what I came to think of in english so I skiped the idea. But I must agree with you.
smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Legolas]

No, Tolkien's books are not sexist. It's the way Western culture has evolved. Would the stories have been treasured by so many, or even come to popularity had it had a more significant number of characters that were female? Not in my opinion.

The addition of females as heroes would turn away many because of the tradition of medieval heros fighting bravely. Now, Tolkien's world was never supposed to be some kind of parallel or even related to the medieval legends we think of, but they do share many factors - great battles, swords, knights, armies of hundreds waging war over power of the land, etc.

Of course, Tolkien could've easily put in more female characters who weren't involved in the fighting and such, but it would have clouded the story and taken away from the focus - the story of the ring being destroyed and a kingdom restored. He didn't want there to be an emphasis on romance (there's Arwen/Aragorn, which is enough), and he knew the inclusion of other female characters would've brought some of the readers to think there might be something going between this and that character...he didn't anyone implying things like that. (Of course, in the present, we now have people reading into homosexual relationships? Urgh...)

A note for those who haven't read...Arwen's part was expanded due to the absence of Glorfindel. Glorfindel was the male elf who would've found Aragorn/the 4 hobbits in the woods and taken Frodo on to Rivendell.

The original poster mentioned Arwen's role being expanded...I'd say these were more for commercial reasons (unfortunately). For the story to be a movie not restricted to just those who enjoyed Tolkien's work already, it may have been the production team's thought that they needed a female character for the female audience to embrace (to sell posters, figures, tickets, etc.) and also embellish on Aragorn/Arwen's relationship for the romantics. If her part was expanded because they felt a need for more female roles, *if* I was a woman, I wouldn't like it. Does the production crew feel sorry for females as if they need to have a prominant feminine character?

Another theory I've heard people say is that the inclusion of Glorfindel would just add another character for the audience to become familiar with. This seems likely, but really, I don't think he had a big enough part to confuse anyone...an elf who doesn't appear in the story anywhere else (except the council - some say a character played him at the council, but that's just speculation) shows up in the woods, takes Frodo on to Rivendell...hard to understand? I think not. Each of the 3 times I've seen the movie, I went with people who hadn't read yet, and they didn't seem to have any problem understanding. (The only thing I saw them have trouble with was the similar appearance of Aragorn and Boromir!)

Remember, just my opinion... smilies/wink.gif

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Enkanowen]

considering the time Tolkien lived in and the way society was shaped, women were seen as those who stay home and watch the house. Eowyn is told this is The Return of the King, that her proper place is at home. This was seen as being protective over a woman, to save her from the horrors of war. Today's standards might consider it to be sexist but indeed I believe that it is merely a reflection of a more conservative time than our own.

[Lush]

Originally posted by Maeglin:
<STRONG>Okay. Sorry Lush... smilies/wink.gif
smilies/rolleyes.gif</STRONG>

Oh Maeglin, I wholeheartedly agree with you that women, being those that bear children, feeling life grow inside of them (aren't I the romantic tonight? smilies/smile.gif ), posses a greater wisdom regarding the sanctity of life, as opposed to men. Not that I love men any less for that.
Besides that-Legalos, I don't agree that the expansion of Arwen's character was entirely commercial (although it was, to some extent, you do need to sell tickets in this business). A great deal has been said on the differences between books and movies as art mediums, but let me say it once more: What works perfectly in a book, may not do so in the movie. If we didn't get to know Arwen the way we did in the first film, Aragorn's character would have been more hollow and distant, and their marriage later would have meant little to us. I have written a great deal regarding my opinions on Arwen saving Frodo, and Arwen at the Ford-on a thread called "People Who Thought the Movie Stunk!"-cute subject title, isn't it? I don't want to bore everyone to tears by repeating myself here, but let's just say that for me, PJ's actions regarding Arwen appear to be logical.

[Mithadan]

I have moved this topic to Books II as I think it fits better here.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Actually ancient matriarchies and the displacement thereof by patriarchal Semitic tribes forms a strong component in Robert Graves' view of Greek mythology. He was a contemporary of Tolkien's and, what with JRRT not being unconnected with mythography himself, I should think that he was aware of the existence of such past societies.
Moreover, the Anglo-Saxon world that Tolkien studied in such detail was more egalitarian in its gender mores than a lot of people suppose; more so than that of their Norman usurpers at least: King Alfred's daughter, Æthelflæd, is consistently portrayed as being the real power in Mercia, some Irish sources feeling the need to justify her strong role through a phantom illness of her husband's.

My view tends towards that expressed by several people in this discussion, that Tolkien felt more comfortable writing about men, but we shouldn't point overly much at his cloistered life as he was a married man and father. I think that he was uncertain of himself when it came to writing about women, and that this was exacerbated by the style he chose. As for Arwen Evenstar, who sparked off all this debate, I should say that the lady who could give up her people not just for life, but for eternity in return for the uncertain fate of mankind; who could stand to wait for years while her man risked his life countless times, and to see the stress it placed on him and still be a support when he did turn up is a strong enough character for my taste, if a little unfashionable. People these days often underestimate the strength of character it takes NOT to go on the adventure, and to hold the fort instead, which is just as vital a part to play, if less glorious (note the role of Fredegar Bolger). Anyway, that's my rambling two-penn'orth

[Orald]

To Goldenwood, I hope you realized I was joking. I don't se how anyone couldn't, so I guess you did.

[Snowy]

i dont think it is sexist, just that he doesnt put many female charis in the book! eowyen played a kinda-big part, and they added arwen just for the 1st movie, cuz really all they said was like "and arwe, elrond's dauaghter was at the table also.." and that is all i remember of her from the FOTR

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

plus a description of dark braids untouched by frost...Squatter I'm in danger of agreeing with you again! lol I've never really thought of Arwen's role that way-that it's harder to remain behind-thankyou smilies/smile.gif

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

No need to thank me; it's harder not to express my opinion. At great length.
That's just something that occurred to me as I was re-reading LoTR this latest time. It seems to me that nowadays it's considered somehow weak for a woman to behave as Arwen does, but here's why I think she comes out as a strong character: Unlike Eowyn, Arwen isn't skilled at arms, and going along with Aragorn would only distract him with worry about her welfare. He needs to know that she's safe to keep his mind on the job and I don't doubt that she knows that. It would be self-indulgent and incredibly stupid to try and go along, so she stays at home.
What's also impressive about Arwen is her constancy, which isn't a trait that I see very often outside books: she's prepared to wait for decades while Aragorn does what he has to do to help save the world. It would be pointless not to accept it, since he doesn't really have a choice, but a lot of people would still complain and issue ultimata, perhaps even call the whole thing off. Instead she helps where she can by making his royal standard. This doesn't seem so important to a modern audience, but in a medieval army the standard is the focal point, enabling soldiers to find the general in the confusion and representing the army's pride and sense of purpose. One might even call it the army's heart and soul, which is why so many standard-bearers are killed on the Pellenor Fields. Also imagine the King's force coming up the Anduin without a flag to identify them: that could have been nasty.

It's this wisdom and spiritual stamina that make Arwen such a good character, however small her part may seem to the uninformed. I don't think that Aragorn could have kept going without her.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Tolkien wasn't misogynistic: I don't think he was putting down women, trying to push an agenda or promoting his own views about gender and society in his work. In fact, I don't think he had any opinion about women.

Women in Tolkien's books are like Hobbits in Middle-Earth: creatures of myth, that most people have never met. And when they do meet them, they're not particularly interested. Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Melian, all of them are mysterious creatures that might worship but never truly understand. The only exception (I think) is Eowyn, who is, for all dramatic purposes, a man.

Tolkien wrote about women the way he might have written about Chinese culture after having spend two weeks in Beijing. In my opinion, it's one of his major shortcomings as a writer, but on the other hand, the stories he wrote took place in a man's world, so his literary 'sexism' if you want to call it that way, had almost no influence on the quality of the books.

A quick note about Arwen in the movies. I don't think Peter Jackson was trying to force a female character into the story. He just wanted to turn the couple of existing Aragorn/Arwen scenes into a subplot, so that we actually care about it when the story ends. We won't know if he was successful until 2003, but I think that it's an excellent idea.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Women in Tolkien's books are like Hobbits in Middle-Earth: creatures of myth, that most people have never met. And when they do meet them, they're not particularly interested. Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Melian, all of them are mysterious creatures that might worship but never truly understand. The only exception (I think) is Eowyn, who is, for all dramatic purposes, a man.

I think that's a bit strong: Let's not forget that Melian is actually a divine being, and if the others seem distant and reserved in LoTR, then it's probably because we only see them in their guise as members of society's elite (I think we can assume a similar view of emotional display to that of polite Edwardian society: that it should be saved for private moments). Perhaps also we're shown the elven women as the hobbits would see them: ethereal and timeless, creatures of wonder. Galadriel does let the mask slip briefly when Frodo offers her the Ring, but only for a fleeting moment and we never really know if she wants to decare herself "not the figure cut in alabaster" in reply to Gimli's flowery praise.
Eowyn perhaps seems more human to us because she shows more of herself, but Eowyn is quite young and impulsive, and she's human. To say that her dramatic role is that of a man is missing the point: her story couldn't happen to a man, because a young nobleman in a warrior society would be out riding against the enemy and taking a military role rather than dry-nursing an infirm king. Therefore a young man would neither want nor need to run off to war in disguise (nor would he be driven by unrequited love for an older man, I should hope).
To understand the reserve largely shown by the noble characters, you have to understand the huge division in British society at the turn of the last century between public and private life. Nowadays tabloid journalism and widespread overcrowding have made it increasingly futile to try to keep anything truly private, but in Tolkien's younger days it was expected that people of a certain class, women especially, would show emotional restraint in public, using more formal language and avoiding personal conversation, save of the most trivial sort. Such formality is rare now, but it shines out in Tolkien's work. He would probably regard intruding overly much into the private lives of his characters as vulgar and rude; in fact we only find out anything about the members of the Fellowship by long association over months of travel through hostile territory.
My view is that Tolkien, however much he yearned for earlier times, was a product of his own after all, and he couldn't help making his characters very reserved and stiff-upper-lipped, just as he himself was trained to be at boarding school. I postulate that, given this reserve, it would have been impossible to paint an intimate portrait of a woman using the narrative style of the book, which uses an observational point of reference that is seldom near them. Eowyn escapes from this emotional obscurity by being closer to the action than the others and therefore more open to the observer's eye. I don't regard the absence of women on the ring-quest as deliberate; it just wouldn't have seemed right to a man of his class to allow women to go into danger when men could go instead: it wouldn't be a gallant thing to do.

[Arwen]

i agree that tolien had a proplem with women, but he spent most of his lif at Oxford, an all male university at the time,
he never spent any time with women, he didnt understand them. but you have to take into account British society at teh time he wrote the book. Women were only just begining to me emanciopated, (this explaines Eowyn) and women were seen as beutiful objects to behold, the elves, Arwen and Gladriel, etc. Women were misterious to Tolkien, thus he made most of them elves

[Elven-Maiden]

If Tolkien had put one girl in the fellowship, there would have been problems. Some of the guys would have to have fallen in love with her, and they'd fight over her... and then there'd be unimportant plotlines. It would destroy the innocence. And remember, he was writing it for his son, if it had been for a girl, he might have put more in.

[SlinkerStinker]

Everyone seems ready to cast stones. I find it quite troubling that people look at someone's writing and then extrapolate from the writing into what the writer believed. If you want to try and make a case for Tolkien being a sexist, try and do it from letters he wrote or an interview he did, but not from his works of fiction.

Using this same "logic" you could say he was rasist as the only colored people he spoke of in LOTR where from way down south in the desert and were helping that nasty Sauron.

Woops maybe that's another thread all together though...

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Also, none of the Fellowship were women

I know this is politically incorrect... men are actually a lot stronger than women. They make better fighters and are hardier for long journeys, and can carry more weight. Men would stand a better chance.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Squatter, I agree with what you've said (Jan.18) on Arwen! In these days of instant gratification not many people understand the concept of waiting and hoping. And your insight (Jan. 20) into the socio-cultural background helps put things in perspective. Thanks!

[Lobelia]

I would like to look at this from the point of view of the reader, not the writer (I agree with SlinkerStinker that you can't directly make judgements about Tolkien's sexism or not from the fictional books -- and I am also less interested in the man's own attitude than in the effects of his fiction).

From the point of the view of the reader, I think the problem is not so much that the women are or are not strong / admirable and so forth but that they play such a secondary role and that there are fewer of them. Readers identify with characters in books, and for male readers there are dozens of very different characters to choose from and they appear throughout the books. If we just take Lord of the Rings: You can imagine that you are or wish you were Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Legolas, Gandalf, even Saruman. Maybe some women readers do identify with Arwen or Galadriel and, more likely, with Eowen but this wouldn't keep you going for whole chapters, even books, during which these don't appear. Also, the choice is very reduced: you can be otherworldly and more perfect than perfect, or you can be a man-woman, or you can be a comic crone (Ioreth) in a very minor role. There is, admittedly, one evil female character but she is so vile (Shelob) that her very contrast to the invariably beautiful and valiant women falls into the old duality good/beautiful woman versus evil witch. She is also not even a person but a beast. The variety is certainly nowhere near as large as it is for the male characters.

This sitution hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the book but it does, I think, make the relationship of women readers to the fiction different from that of men.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

but he spent most of his lif at Oxford, an all male university at the time
Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford's first women's college, opened in 1878; fourteen years before Tolkien was born.

he never spent any time with women

He was married, although I'm willing to concede that he may not have spent much time around more than one woman.
Women were only just begining to me emanciopated
Women over 30 were given the vote in Britain in 1918. In 1928 the minimum age was reduced to 21, in line with that for men. The first woman MP was elected in 1919. By the time Tolkien started writing LoTR emancipation was well underway. Also during the first war many women took over the jobs of men who had joined the army, a fact of which Tolkien would have been well aware. By the time RoTK was published women's rights had been on the political agenda for upwards of seventy years and service as nurses, military auxiliaries, munitions workers and so forth in the Second War had certainly got people used to the idea of women at work. I'd hardly call this the beginning of emancipation. More like a mid-way point.
Women were misterious to Tolkien, thus he made most of them elves
That may be true, but I'm not so sure that society was to blame. Perhaps lack of interest in the subject played a part as well.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Readers identify with characters in books, and for male readers there are dozens of very different characters to choose from and they appear throughout the books. If we just take Lord of the Rings: You can imagine that you are or wish you were Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Legolas, Gandalf, even Saruman. Maybe some women readers do identify with Arwen or Galadriel and, more likely, with Eowen but this wouldn't keep you going for whole chapters, even books, during which these don't appear.

The fact that it was entirely written from the point of view of one female character didn't diminish my understanding of Mansfield Park. An author will usually indicate which character or characters are intended to be the focal point of the narrative, and it is with these that we are intended to identify. In the case of LoTR, that's the four hobbits: we know what they're thinking, how they see things and what they're doing and we rarely see events in which they're not involved. We're not supposed to imagine ourselves being Gandalf or Aragorn; Eowyn or Galadriel and especially not Saruman; if we were then the entire tone and perspective of the story would be different. We're intended to imagine being present where they are present and seeing what they do and say, as in a myth. Besides which author's aren't required to provide an equal balance of gender, race, religion, eye-colour, occupation, social class or ability to drive. In fact during the first half of the last century it was perfectly acceptable to do the opposite. The obsession with equal involvement for everyone in everything is a very modern trend.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Lush]

I'm a girl, but I actually imagine myself to be Aragorn more so than the others (Freud would have a field-day, I know). I think my life is somewhat similar to his, as strange as that may sound.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

the women are or are not strong/admirable and so forth but that they play such a secondary role and that there are fewer of them.

Lord of the Rings is largely concerned with war. Of course there's going to be a lot more men than women in that case, because women aren't fighters on the front line, and in a vaguely mediaval society such as that of Middle-Earth, not involved in battle in any way. Eowyn is a romantic add-on that brings some more complexities and interest to the book.
Tolkien wasn't sexist, he just told it realistically. You can hardly blame him for having more men that women in a book about war.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[The Mirrorball Man]

Originally posted by Squatter of Amon Rudh:
Besides which author's aren't required to provide an equal balance of gender, race, religion, eye-colour, occupation, social class or ability to drive.

You're right. But the fact that there are very few female characters in Tolkien's books doesn't bother me. It's the poor characterization of these female characters that bugs me. Jane Austen mostly wrote about women. Her stories were told from a female perspective. But here male characters were as convincing as her female characters. I don't see the same quality in Tolkien's writings.

[Lobelia]

I've thought about this quite a bit since I first posted my message here some days ago. I concede (and agree here with Squatter) that yes, we can and do 'identify' with characters in books who are not necessarily at all like us and who may be of the opposite sex. And yes, certainly, in LotR, that's the 4 hobbits. Maybe it's a matter of thinking about what 'identifying' with a character in a book means.

Certainly for me the most intense parts of the book are always those parts of Books 4 and 6 that deal with Sam's and Frodo's journey into and across Mordor. No women figure there at all (except Shelob, I guess). But it's true, that hasn't stopped me from feeling WITH the hobbits, particularly with Sam, and imagining myself into that situation.

Judging from comments elsewhere I'm not the only one to find the relationship between Sam and Frodo particularly compelling. Maybe this is because it's not a conventionally 'macho' relationship but allows for a whole range of emotions, some of which have been traditionally associated with femininity.

I do think that Tolkien was 'sexist', if that word is taken in a crude sense (and it is a crude word, not much nuance there) but that doesn't necessarily tell us anything interesting at all about the book.

Judging from this site and a few others I've visited since I first found this one, LotR has a huge female fanbase -- something which surprised and delighted me!

[Mister Underhill]

sex·ism
Function: noun
Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
Date: 1968
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex“Sexist” is a harsh word, and one that I think is unfairly applied to Tolkien, especially considering its connotations of oppression, abusiveness, and domination. If anything, the prof is guilty of over-idealizing his women according to the chivalric tradition.

I think Tolkien gets a bad rap on this whole issue. I have the same reaction when people say that the LotR is an overly-simplistic, black-and-white tale of good vs. evil. Such folks have never plumbed the depths of Denethor’s ambiguity, nor pondered the impulses behind Boromir’s fit of “madness”, nor wondered if Gollum might be redeemable. So, too, critics are apt to write off JRRT’s treatment of women, saying he doesn’t know them, he doesn’t like them, he is mystified by them.

Galadriel, LotR’s most prominent female character (though Éowyn is arguably as significant), is a queen of considerable power whose male consort seems childish and petty by comparison. Is she any less “realistic” than Elrond? Any less remote and aristocratic than Denethor?

Éowyn is headstrong and competent, hardly a retiring stay-at-home-barefoot-and-pregnant figure. I think she’s arguably more complex than Faramir.

Is Ioreth any more of a broadly-stroked comical figure than the Gaffer? Is Lobelia portrayed with less sensitivity than, say, Ted Sandyman?

There are plenty of examples of strong female characters in The Silmarillion. To say that Lúthien, Melian, et al are mysterious and unknowable – i.e., larger than life – is simply to be disputatious. Like it or hate it, the Sil is what it is – a collection of the myths and legends of Middle-earth’s gods and heroes. All the characters are larger than life, and all the drama is dialed up to operatic intensity.

Having men consciously keep women out of the mix in warfare or when a dangerous mission is about to be undertaken is hardly a new idea, especially in British literature. Compare Kipling’s dynamic duo Peachy and Danny from The Man Who Would Be King who draw up a “contrack” between themselves before undertaking the dangerous enterprise of attempting to set themselves up as kings of Kafiristan, the second clause of which reads, “That you and me will not, while this matter is being settled, look at any Liquor, nor any Woman, black, white, or brown, so as to get mixed up with one or the other harmful.” Not because women are intrinsically harmful; on the contrary, as Peachy declares, “We have kept away from the two things that make life worth having.” This retreat into asceticism before setting out to perform a dangerous task is a common motif of myth, so it’s no surprise that we find it in LotR as well.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

But there is a reason for keeping women out of front-line war. Men make better warriors, and a system works out wherby the men go off to fight while the women look after what they've left. It happened in both world wars in Britain at any rate, and worked nicely.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

This retreat into asceticism before setting out to perform a dangerous task is a common motif of myth, so it’s no surprise that we find it in LotR as well.

There's no place for distraction in a dangerous situation. Perfectly sensible thing to do, which is probably why it's appears so often.

You're right. But the fact that there are very few female characters in Tolkien's books doesn't bother me. It's the poor characterization of these female characters that bugs me. Jane Austen mostly wrote about women. Her stories were told from a female perspective. But here male characters were as convincing as her female characters. I don't see the same quality in Tolkien's writings.

I've just finished reading The Mariner's Wife in Unfinished Tales. When the dramatic situation allowed he could portray a woman convincingly. Unfortunately for the person who'd like an accessible female character he does tend to show us characters' personalities through what they say and do, which requires their involvement in events close to the narration and their being forthcoming with their emotions. Galadriel is a Queen and the luxury of telling people what you're thinking and feeling is not for royalty. Does Queen Elizabeth give personal interviews to The Mirror listing her favourite films or explaining what she thinks of the Prime Minister? Of course not; it would be inappropriate, although plenty of idiots would like to see it.
The same rule applies for Melian: the necessary distance of monarchy; we can get some sort of an idea about Morwen Eledhwen, because we see her in emotionally-charged circumstances and isolated from society (in any case, Hurin's family were pretty headstrong, poor fellow). I think it's quite believable that noblewomen should keep back a lot of themselves, especially since people like Aragorn and Gandalf behave in the same way, and we only see them in any more detail by witnessing more of their words and actions.
Austen had an unfair advantage in that she was writing about the provincial gentry rather than courtly high society; about the English countryside rather than the battlefields of Napoleonic Europe and about social rather than military events. Also her plots, in their tendency to culminate in weddings, couldn't very well avoid containing men. Battlefield warfare, when managed correctly, is not a mixed event, whereas a country ball necessarily is.

[Lush]

While this is not meant as a crticism to Tolkien (his books are in a class of their own, set apart from the rest, and are not easily judged by the same standards that we may apply to other familiar literature, modern literature in particular), the deep recesses of the characters' minds, the dirt under their fingernails, the salt of their tears, are, when presented well, the things that make us care for them in the first place. I am personally quite bored by high society with their stiff upper lips, starched collars, and the like. I do not mean that people like the Queen should rush out on some talk-show and entertain the audience with tales of her naughty childhood (if she even had one). I actually quite like mystery, but only if I believe that there is substance behind the veil. It is pretense I can't tolerate-especially in literature.
Having said that, I believe that Tolkien pulled the mystery bit off! We know little about Galadriel, yet we love her anyway. Thus I believe there is nothing to complain about.

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

I tried to post days ago but it didn't work :/ this is mainly in response to a comment that there's very few female characters to identify with and that can make keeping interest during long periods without them hard...well I do identify with Eowyn (I know I'm stating the obvious smilies/smile.gif) but like others before me I can sympathise with the men too-maybe just bits and pieces of them, and not as much as guys would-and I love the books smilies/smile.gif I agree that in a tale of war there will be more men than women
*just another installment of my two cents' worth*

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

The keyword here is 'war'. Lord of the Rings is almost all about war. If Tolkien had had women regularaly fighting battles against orcs and southrons, it would have been a lot less realistic. He was not sexist.
True, he should have written about a few more female elves in Lorien & Rivendell, and maybe some more women in Rohan, but that is somewhat of a minor thing, easily overlooked. And what about the Entwives? If he was really sexist he wouldn't have included them so much as he did.
Most of the roles of Third-Age Middle-Earth figures of prominence had to do with fighting, and that is, I believe, why women were largely left out of those positions. In places where fighting was absent - and there were few - women wer there.

[Carannillion]

I can't do anything but agree with most of you. Tolien was not a sexist.

As mentioned by several others, women generally don't go to war. Of course, there are female soldiers, but not really any significant amount, compared to men.

As for the Entwives, very good point, Gwaihir.

I read somewhere that one of the reasons for Tolkien's not including the women any more than he did - and not embellishing on the love stories (at least not until the end of the book) - was because he would then have had to make more of it (baby-making and stuff). This could have lead to some people feeling offended (literature containing *sex* was considered tacky) [especially in the Aragorn/Arwen thing]. He was simply being careful. Do you want to read a book that's constantly stepping on your toes?

I think Tolkien actually did a great job, including women as best he could. Perhaps you could have done it better - having read it, thought about it, and then reconsidered and stuff. Have any of you done anything you couldn't possibly have done better?

Tolkien rules.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I actually quite like mystery, but only if I believe that there is substance behind the veil. It is pretense I can't tolerate-especially in literature.

I can't agree that there's no substance behind Tolkien's noble characters; you just have to look for it carefully and read between the lines. He didn't emphasise the moments when we're supposed to be watching out for the people behind the veil because he wasn't a scriptwriter for a second-rate situation comedy.

As for pretence: to be a leader, social or military is to have others follow one's example, for good or ill. If it's all right for people to go revealing their personal weaknesses and those of their society to the enemy, then I suppose it's all right for the leaders to make public their feelings and motivations. Pretence is a necessary evil when it comes to holding together a threatened society. As I've said before, the likes of Morwen and Turin behave in a way that we'd recognise and everything they do ends in disaster.

[Lush]

When I wrote about lack of substance and abundance of pretense, I wasn't talking about Tolkien. I was talking about people. Particularly much of the world's wealthy and powerful. I cannot appreciate a person on such a level, I need to know them as human beings first. I also think that leaders do not have to *pretend* to be strong and honoroubale, they should possess such qualities already.
As for J.R.R., I don't think he's empty, just subtle.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I think for the most part the characters other than the Hobbits are archetypes, a little more fleshed out than normal, but still... Whenever I see archetypes I don't think it matters whether they're male or female: they're rocks in the course of the stream, directing it one way or the other. The fact that of the five Hobbits (I include Bilbo) there are no girl Hobbits, doesn't bother me either. Five is an awfully small percentage, a focused little group, and the boys do tend to buddy up, yes?

I don't know why, but in fantasy feminist themes seem to flop (Bradley a notable exception). Eowyn works only because of the quasi-viking quality of the Rohirrim. Feminist themes in SciFi on the other hand do well.

[obloquy]

Read Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth. If you still believe Tolkien might have been sexist, there's simply no hope for you.

[Rosie Posie Burrows]

Replying to the original message:
There are some points there I suppose- but that person obviously didn't know what she was talking about! She could at least have found out a little of the background of Lord of the Rings and known that Arwen is an elf, not a woman. smilies/rolleyes.gif
When considering this we have to remember that Tolkeins' works were essentially a collection of myths and legends from Middle Earth, and if you look at any myths and legends from other cultures, such as Greek or Roman, there is a definite absence of women with swords, saving the day. It's the men who are the heroes in that sort of genre.
Also, as Lord of the Rings was set far in the past, when women's roles were definitely set as the ones that stayed at home and looked beautiful, then it's hardly surprising that womens' roles in the book were what they were. A really forthstanding female heroine would not have fitted in in that world. Considering all this, and society as it would realistically have been on Middle Earth, some of the women in Lord of the Rings are surprisingly unconventional, especially that one that comes in in the second book, I think, I can't believe I've forgotten her name… the one that wanted to ride to battle with her father. You know which one I mean…
So, no, I don't think Tolkein's books are sexist really.
Phew! What a lot of words!
smilies/biggrin.gif

[Rosie Posie Burrows]

Incidentally, is there such thing as a female dwarf on Middle earth? If so, what are all those male dwarves doing to the females? Are they kept locked up in a dungeon somewhere? I think there's a serious issue of mistreatment there.
And if there isn't such thing as a female dwarf, how the hell are the dwarves reproducing?
Definitely something fishy going on…
Does Tolkein explain this in any of his works, or is it left as one of the Great Unanswered Questions of Middle Earth?
smilies/smile.gif

[red]

Wait a minute. Galadriel a Queen? I remember reading that Galadriel and Celeborn specifically did NOT take up the titles of Queen and King, hence they are always refered to as Lady and Lord. Or am I missing something? I would have assumed those who posted that Galadriel was a Queen to be wrong if it were not the esteemed Mr Underhill himself! <shock> smilies/wink.gif

-rèd

[red]

Celeborn and Galadriel returned to Lórien, and were welcomed by the people. There they dwelt while the Third Age lasted, but they took no title of King or Queen; for they said that they were only guardians of this small but fair realm, the last eastward outpost of the Elves. -History of Galadriel and Celeborn, Unfinished TalesI decided not to be lazy and looked up this quote. Plus, you'll remember in LotR, G and C are always refered to as Lady and Lord, never Queen and King. smilies/smile.gif

-réd

[Voronwe]

I think she was really a queen in all but title (at least according to UT). However there is this rather odd quote from 'of the Rings of Power' in the Silmarillion:

A queen she was of the woodland Elves, the wife of Celeborn of Doriath...

-Voronwë

[Carannillion]

I think it says somewhere that female dwarves are few and hard to find. They supposedly also have beards, like male dwarves (or am I thinking D&D?), so outsiders often have a hard time telling them apart.

Galadriel was originally of noble descent from the Noldor and Teleri elves of Aman. hear grandfather on her mother's side was Olwë, king of the Teleri who completed the journey to Aman, and her grandfather on her fathers side was Finwë, king of the Noldor and also the father of Fëanor.
(the family trees of Silmarillion)

She was counted a princess, but as Red stated: She was only guardian of the realm of the woodland Elves. She had no desire of taking the title as queen. Probably because she was not of their kin.

This actually shows us her character when it comes to the choice of power. Already as early as this, she refused to take power, like she did when Frodo offered her the One Ring...

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Carannillion ]

[Mister Underhill]

Trying to catch me on a technicality, eh, réd? Note that I used the lowercase “q” as opposed to the titular “Q”, by which means I have applied the word in a broader, less literal sense (cf. www.m-w.com: (http://www.m-w.com:) 2 a : a female monarch b : a female chieftain; 3 a : a woman eminent in rank, power, or attractions).

Technicalities aside, though, who is Galadriel kidding? Guardian-schmardian. Everyone knows that before coming to Middle-earth, “…she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will.” Declining to formally declare herself a queen was just another bit of Elvish nonsense. Everyone knew who was boss of the old Golden Wood. There’s that quote that Voronwe mentioned, and also note that at one point Gimli refers to her as “Queen Galadriel” and Legolas doesn’t correct him…

[Turambar]

Yes, and applying the same reasoning to the issue of who was king of the Noldor in Tirion . . . smilies/evil.gif

[buttchunk]

I know there weren't many important women in LotR, but those who were in it were very important. Galadriel, for example, was a very wise and wonderful elf. She was a very powerful character who was a wome. Then Eowyn, she slayed the Witchking. That was a very dangerous and amazing task. Even though there weren't many women in LotR, they were very special.

[Lothiriel Silmarien]

I'll make it short for the sake of everyone smilies/wink.gif smilies/tongue.gif I get too confusing when I babble on!

No. In his time period, that's how things were. Everything was different.

Even though there weren't many women in LotR, they were very special.

Exactly smilies/biggrin.gif

[ColletteTook]

the books were published in an age when women were not very prominent outside the home. it is possible that the books are sexist, but HIGHLY unlikely. if he was then why would he had made Eowyn prevail over the witch-king? he was showing a triumph of weomen and i do not see that in any way sexist.
The age in which the war of the ring took place, was also a time when women were kept at home. tolkien was merely showing the bitter truth that that was how it really was. grim...

[Genandra of Mirkwood]

Warning, rant follows. smilies/smile.gif This is a pretty outrageous example of the kind of feminist revisionist hooha that comes out of literary criticism, where people don't bother to actually read a book, let alone try to appreciate it. "Scholars" like this spend their time skimming synopses of books trying to sniff out the big bad sexists and then write journal articles hoping for just the kind of plum reaction this lady got (ie, being invited to a talk show). Bleccch! Rant cooling down now...

As has been pointed out, Galadriel is a figure that looms very large in all of the chronicles. Not to mention Elbereth and all the female Valar! We can also likely assume (though we're not told) that there were female warriors: elven females. The fact that most human societies in ME had "traditional" roles for women can be thought of as reflecting history. I think someone brought up "The Mariner's Wife." Tolkien, in his way, did explore the issue of male and female roles. Of course, for some feminists, it would not be enough.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Genandra of Mirkwood ]

[NazgulNumberTen]

are tolkien books sexist?
no.
and even if you can point out sexist undertones, they are accidental and do not comprimise the quaitly of his work. the problem is, and reason why these things are pointed out, is that times change. standards change. thoughts and views change. it is unfair to judge something using the views of your time when the books were written in another.
but my ramblings are irelavent. the fact remains, no matter what is said in offence or defence, tolkien's works are not sexist.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Yesterday I was exploring my opinions of Éowyn for a post on the "Hope-lessly in love" thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002143) and I realised that far from being sexist, which I'd never believed him to be in any case, Tolkien had quite a liberated attitude to women. The whole story of Éowyn's escape from domestic monotony to play a pivotal part in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is one of liberation from a traditional feminine rôle to one more usually associated with men. In relating it, Tolkien takes an ironic swipe at the plot device of the handsome Prince turning up on his charger to save the poor little woman from drudgery (see my posting on the other thread for a more complete explanation of my ideas about this).
I don't see it as any coincidence that Disney were producing their hideously bowdlerised and saccharine versions of European fairy-stories at about the time that Tolkien was writing his epic. I think that in a way Éowyn's story is a direct attack on films like Cinderella, through its placing of the responsibility for a woman's destiny firmly in her own hands and demonstration of the happy results.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this matter?

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Tirned Tinnu]

I am very glad to hear that most of you believe as I do, that Tolkien never had an ounce of malice in him towards women.
In fact, I sometimes wonder, the books are rather Freudian in nature, seemingly placing women upon pedestals as creatures of untouchable beauty. Nobility, grace, all virtues they are given. Even the human women are treated with gentleness and respect. Eowyn is feisty, and when up against Aragorn, whom she wants, he does not taunt her. He speaks with care and love. I cannot say that I saw as much respect of women in CS Lewis's work! (And he is the nearest author to compare to Tolkien, obviously. but Lewis wrote of children, not of grown women, unless you count the White Witch as a woman...)

[bombur]

10 Richter rant warning!!!!

Some analyzers say that in Tolkiens world the women conform to certain stereotypes. To a degree this is true... his male charachters do as well. In my opinion all of Tolkiens charachters are rather romantic and dramatic then sexist or sensual. All of them are paper thin in the places that are not usually explored in romantic fantasy epics, sagas or such.

(Was Boromir married? Did the Istar have affairs? What really was going on between Sam and Rose before the journey... something obviously... was it hard decision for Sam to go? Thin femininity = thin masculinity.)

But how far can you take the precence of stereotypes as a basis for criticism? An analysis I red while ago commented that it was proof of Tolkiens misogynism that Eowyn was clearly part of the Xena-Red Sonia stereotype. The analyzer also felt it was proof of Tolkiens misogynism the there were so few female charachters...

-DUH-

The epic is mainly made of annal-like historical stories of the times of war!

If you have female warriors, you are a sexist, if you do not, you are a sexist. Tolkien manages to be double as sexist by having one.

-DUH-

Sexual liberation IN ATTITUDES AND LITERATURE is thing of the sixties... or nineties. Up to that it was basically almost forbidden to give active and powerfull roles to women in literature. And in the fourties-fifties, Tolkien made up charachters like...

Galadriel: Definately the most powerful mortal of middle earth of the third age, most ambitious one and still one of good guys.

Eowyn: The one exeption to break the historical ”stay at home rule”, rather a Joan d’Arc type. (One of the first female charachters to break this rule in fantasy, I'd say. Eowyn was no "quota female" hero.)

Luthien: A heroine carrying most of the burden and definately having active role. Also interrestingly Luthien was not violent charachter and still managed to be a true hero. Modern fiction seems almost incapable of producing such charachters male or female.

Melian: Female charachter having undisputable, heawy duty power.

Yawanna, Varda, Nienna, etc: Female gods exist in every legend, Tolkien however is exeptional in not making any of them fall in the categories of *****es (Hera, Friga, Isis), evils (Hecate, Hel) or sexobjects (Freya, Afrodite,Bast, Astarte).

Lobelia, Gollums grandmother: matriarchtypes.

Haleth: Quite another type of warrior/matriarch of the Boaedica variety.

Ruling Queens in Numenor (4): are about as frequent in Tolkiens history as they are in the history of England.

Tolkien did give different roles to men and women. There are only few female warriors who are driven by extraordinairy motivations and even fewer female ”adventurers.” Tolkien did give the women in his stories both personality and power however. I’d rather see him as pioneer. This is especially true if you compare his female charachters to those of contemporary authors like Howard, who only knew how to portray women as sex-objects, chainmail-bimboes or evil sorceresses.

Tolkien employed practically all of historical and epical archetypes available to him for creation of believable active and powerful women and invented two new archetypes (Galadriel and Luthien). Curiously neither has been much used in the literature since. Perhaps it is easier to satisfy the gender quota by adding a couple of paper thin Xena-Red Sonia-Eowyn type charachters or evil sorceresses and forget all about it.

Seriously speaking... I think LOTR is still today a rather examplary in a positive way, of fantasy that is epic but still gives women a role. I just wish some more modern authors would dare to build on that foundation.


Janne Harju

(BTW: to clarify things, I am a man, -Grunt-. smilies/tongue.gif )

[Lush]

Was Boromir married?

Well, no, he wasn't. Right off the top of my head: Tolkien wrote that Boromir wasn't interested in marriage (surprising how so much fuss is always being made over the relationship between Frodo and Sam, while nobody is even remotely curious as to what Boromir was really up to, if you get my drift...not that I want to start one of those discussions). Basically, the guy appears to have chosen a bachelor's way of life.

Sexual liberation IN ATTITUDES AND LITERATURE is thing of the sixties... or nineties.

Oh no, you are not implying that...? Did I sleep through the sexual liberation? Is it over? But...but... smilies/tongue.gif

Nah, dude, it's all good. I'm not surprised, however, that you have left Arwen off the list. Actually, some people can convincingly argue that she was as strong as anyone, just in a less showy way.

[bombur]

Well... Arwen I left out intentionally... I am enough male equality activist to see her rather negatively.

a) sexobject... prize for Aragorn

b) devious behind the scenes manipulator.

If one assumes Arwen to be strong charachter, one is also automatically faced with the realization of to what degree she walks Aragorn in leach.

I think I'd rather go for a.

Does not question my point however.

Janne Harju

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I'm afraid that I see Arwen as neither, bombur. Some of my earlier posts on this very thread should clarify my opinions, but it would help if you could substantiate yours: I can understand the view of Undómiel as a sex object (although it's rather a crude one to take of her and not one of which Tolkien would have approved); but a devious manipulator? Where on earth did that come from?

[Lush]

Uh, yeah. Personally, I have concluded that Arwen is a powerful guiding force in the story, but devious...? What, have you discovered an obscure Tolkien letter that suggests she was cheating on Aragorn with the Witch-King of Angmar? smilies/wink.gif

As for the whole "sex" thing, well, she's obviously not unattractive. Then again, this is true for pretty much every major female character Tolkien ever created. You could call Galadriel a sex-object by the same token, what with her brilliant golden hair, Gimli's crush, and Fëanor's advances.

Of course, the few times that Arwen is overtly referred to, a big fuss is made of her appearance, but if you read between the lines, there is something deep, mysterious, and all together wonderful about Arwen, something that does not fit into the standard sex-kitten frame.

Arwen's biggest fault indeed may be that she is just too perfect; or is seemingly so, considering how little we actually know about her.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Mister Underhill]

[...]a devious manipulator? Where on earth did that come from? Can't you two see that she was just using Aragorn to worm her way out of that oh-so-boring immortality thing and the all-too-predictable Halls of Mandos ("Oh, Uncle Celebdemoníal. Yeah, great to see you, too. Looking forward to spending eternity with you. Again.") so that she could see what's behind Door Number Two, the Doom of Men? All the other elf-maidens must be sooooo jealous.

[Tirned Tinnu]

Mr. Bombur, I think you posted that just to incite an argument.
For what it's worth:
Arwen was "The Most Beautiful Elf-Maiden in Middle Earth." Lucky her. So, she had tweezers and hair brushes and was treated like a princess. Damn, I wish I could hang around in the beauty salon all day, doing nothing but looking pretty. (Don't they say it's not easy being beautiful?? )
Do you remember that she actually did not want Aragorn, when he met her at 20 years old in Rivendell? She thought he was too young! (And he was.)
It wasn't until Galadriel dressed him up like a prince nearly 40 or more years later that she saw that special something in him.
You might say that it's Galadriel's fault. She's the one who gave him the princely clothes and jewels to wear. A little bit of Elvish matchmaking there, I think....

Arwen stays true to her promise, and spends years embroidering the Standard that Aragorn uses to lead the Acursed Men to war.
She also helps out in getting him good advice on how NOT to die.

I do not remember reading anywhere that she worked with her father Elrond in order to push Aragorn to his Kingship. I think she would have been satisfied to move to Lorien with him, and have a nice, lush life. Unfortunately, there was other business to do if Lorien was to be there much longer. Aragorn took the responsible role of leader in this. Can you fault either of them?

I see the antagonists as Galadriel and Elrond. Respond to that, sir.


smilies/wink.gif

[bombur]

I did NOT write that to provoke argument.

As I DID read the earlier parts of this discussion, I decided to leave that out from my first message in order NOT to provoke argument.

I am quite aware that Tolkien would not have approved that interpretation and most certainly did not intend such to be made.

In Tolkiens unions between man and elf, the elven woman (no exeptions - a woman) is typically so pure that one is almost unable to look at her without sunglasses... The man seems to be more or less a "noble savage" with slight inferiority complex... Perhaps this has got something to do with personal life of that couple on whose tombstone has been inscribed the words Luthien and Beren.

Tolkien in my opinion, especially compared to his contemporaries, gives women charachters genuine importance. So what if this is result of holding ones own spouse in very very very great regard? If it is I emphasise. In my opinion the saga in general manages to be exeptionally egalitarian in this regard. Possibly in part due to this balancing feature.

Now, taking all this into account, think of Luthien and Beren. Luthien goes with Beren to fulfill the task imposed by her father. She is the stronger of the two in all ways save swordplay, I'd say. They do great heroics. They live happily ever after.

What does Arwen do in exactly similar situation? She sends Aragorn to do great heroics and occasionally sends encouragement.

I see only two alternate interpretations. Firsat one is, that she is pure and beautiful as Tolkien surely intended. Mystical perhaps. But she is not person of strong will, great skills and wisdom like Luthien. (Lack of wisdom at least is supported by the fact that she grasps the tragedy of mens mortality only when Aragorn is dying.)

The secong alternative is in my opinion that she is strong in will, skill and wisdom, but CHOOSES to send ones knight to do great things to win ones hand. Much in the same way that the strong willed women on pedestal do in Arthurian legend. (And that is what I as male gender equality activist DO call devious manipulation.)

Thus I just left her out from the list of strong, independet and active female charachters and hoped no-one would notice. I prefer the first interpretation.


Janne Harju

[bombur]

Ah... now that I think, I may have been provoking. Sorry.

In my earlier message I gave two choises, a) sexobject, b) manipulator...

May I rephrase...

As I do not see her as manipulator, I must see her in a role that POLITICALLY CORRECT FEMINIST might categorise as a sexual object and price for fulfilling a quest.

Anyways I explained why I did not consider her one of the strong charachters. I myself do not automatically think her role as weakwilled charachter makes her a sexobject.


Janne Harju

[Mister Underhill]

(Lack of wisdom at least is supported by the fact that she grasps the tragedy of mens mortality only when Aragorn is dying.) I would suggest that it’s not Arwen who is displaying a lack of wisdom here. Intellectually grasping that you will some day lose the one you love is not the same as actually confronting the reality of it.

I also disagree with what you characterize as the “only two” interpretations. It usually takes greater willpower and maturity to sacrifice one’s own wishes and desires for the greater good or doing what is right. If she were “weak-willed”, as you say, she would have insisted on accompanying Aragorn and the Fellowship (creating a distraction for him which would have been at least dangerous and at worst catastrophic) or tried to manipulate him into shirking his duty (not just on the Quest of the Ring, but for many years beforehand) and spending more time with her. Her sacrifice of years which could have been spent together with Aragorn under different circumstances is all the more poignant considering her sacrifice of her Elvish immortality to be with him in the relatively few years they were able to spend together.

[Lush]

As I do not see her as manipulator, I must see her in a role that POLITICALLY CORRECT FEMINIST might categorise as a sexual object and price for fulfilling a quest.

Uh, please do not use those vile "PC feminist" terms. They are about as trendy Milli Vanilli.

As for Arwen being a sexual object, well, what's wrong with that? I don't believe the statement, but what's the problem with it anyway? Some things, a man has to earn. I think.

[Nar]

I suspect Arwen spent much of her time working as a diplomat and councillor to her father. This is not stated explicitly in the text, but considering the situation at Rivendell, and Arwen's travelling back and forth between Rivendell and Lorien, it seems likely. Her mother was gone, her brothers don't appear to have spent much time in Rivendell, as far as I can tell, it was Elrond, Glorfindel and Arwen keeping the place going, and Arwen maintaining the alliance with Lorian.

I can see the use of the knight-errantry of Elladan and Elrohir, but I think the work of Elrond, Arwen, Glorfindel and others was even more important. Elves had a safe haven in the west, they had only to succumb to the sea-longing to leave all problems behind: threats, danger of capture, torture, etc. It can't have been easy maintaining Rivendell as a haven and persuading a critical mass of elves to resist the lure of Valinor and stay in Middle Earth with all its darkness and dangers, slowly fading all the while.

Galadriel was still concerned with the fate of Middle Earth, but Lorien appeared by the time of LotR to have largely if not completely cut itself off from non-elves. I think Arwen served a crucial function as a diplomat, maintaining communication and alliance between the still-powerful but increasingly inward looking Lorien and the resolutely outward-looking, welcoming and hospitable Rivendell.

I've never believed in the movie Arwen hurtling around by herself on a fast horse, because considering what happened to her mother, the relentless worrying would have caused Elrond to implode into pulverized pixie-dust. It would have been too cruel, even for the sake of Eowen-style shieldmaiden self-actualization. Even in company with a troop of armed elves, it can't have been easy for Elrond when she travelled, but they both handled it.

While not as dramatically correct as knight-errant or shield-maiden, I think the work of a diplomat and ambassador is just as important, if not more so. It was after all Gandalf's role as well for virtually all of his time in Middle Earth, would you call him a purely ornamental sex-object?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well-spoken, Nar - I hadn't considered the aspect of diplomacy in Arwen's life, but it sounds quite logical to me. Being a counselor to her father would eminently predestinate her for the role of a queen, wouldn't it? I'm sure she was of great help to Aragorn in that way. And patience, the ability to wait for the right time, is a characteristic I wish more modern politicians had!

Your comparison of Lórien and Rivendell is very interesting. Of the two, Rivendell, though perhaps less spectacular, was more instrumental in giving hope and assistance to Middle-Earth at that time - to say nothing of the fact that it harboured the future king during his formative years!

[Anarya SilverBranch]

I do not believe Tolkien's books to be sexist because considering he was writing them from the point of view of a world likening to ancient Europe, I guess he really didn't have a choice.
The women the books had all of the qualities expected of ancient women; skilled in many arts, virginal, sensitive to things men would over look, beautiful, and, if the need came, they could kick butt like any other soldier and still be eloquent and graceful while doing it.

(if my reply is stupid and doesn't make sense, just over look it. I'm tired from a week of waking up at five in the morning for school:rolleyes smilies/smile.gif

[bombur]

***********
Lush: Uh, please do not use those vile "PC feminist" terms. They are about as trendy Milli Vanilli.
***********

Uh... sorry, may I rephrase again... As I do not see her as a manipulator, I am forced to see her in a role that some of my friends would consider to be that of a sexobject smilies/smile.gif

BTW: What the ****** is milli vanilli ?????????

**********
Mister underhill: ”If she were “weak-willed”, as you say, she would have insisted on accompanying Aragorn and the Fellowship...”
**********

...Which logic holds water only, if she is without talent and strenght to be valuable member of the fellowship. In which case she still has no place in my list of strong/mighty/willfull/powerful/personality-infused/etc female charachters of LOTR.

*********
Mister Underhill: ”I would suggest that it’s not Arwen who is displaying a lack of wisdom here. Intellectually grasping that you will... ”
*********

I am trying to avoid direct quotations since I’ve got the books in Finnish and have to translate, but in the story of Arwen and Aragorn in the appendixes of the LOTR, when Aragorn is about to die Arwen said something to the effect of: ”Only now I understand the fall of your family. I always despiced them as vile fools, but if this is the gift of the one to men, it is bitter to take.” Thats what I call lack of wisdom. To DESPICE someone for his weakness and then whine when facing the same ordeal. Have done it myself... subsequently surrendering any claim of wisdom.


To Nar I’d say that the LOTR far more emphasises Arwens role in keeping the eleves in middle earth by entirely different talents then those of diplomat. She was dancing around looking pretty and YOUNG (by eleven standards). I think that is what was meant by ”Arwen the beautiful, maiden of Lorien and Imladris, eveningstar of her people.” Also I’d like to say that diplomacy, at least as it was in the feudal era, did not require much talent from those shipped back and forth between castles as tokens of friendship... I of course cannot ”prove” that she was not a talented diplomat. Then again I cannot prove that she was not king of France. LOTR does not to my knowledge give her a strong role. We of cource always may if we wish. Also it might be worthwhile to note that she was not ”queen to be.” We are speaking of eleves. Both Elrond and Galadriel had all intentions of ruling as long as the eleven kingdoms in middle earth lasted. Nars comment on why Arwen could not have been ”a shield maiden” even if she wished is rather perceptive. I think this goes to the many late born children of Lorien and Imladris. Neither is living the age of great warriors. They are last safe havens, not forward military bases.

Yet I once more emphasise that I basically agree with Anarya Silverbranch. While setting the books in very sexist environment Tolkien still makes up many powerful and believable female charachters. I just do not count Arwen as one.


Janne Harju

[bombur]

Lush wrote:

"As for Arwen being a sexual object, well, what's wrong with that? I don't believe the statement, but what's the problem with it anyway? Some things, a man has to earn. I think."

I could not resist the temptation after all...

You should take into account the possible cultural differences here. In Finland 7 out of 18 cabinet ministers are women. My party has presidet, president of the parliamentary group and president of central comitee all female. President of the nation and president of the parliament are women. 74 out of 200 members of parliament are women. Finland gave vote to women in 1905 being second country in world to do that and first to grant universal suffrage (to women too.) In 1917 in our civil war the red womens guards openly and justifiedly accused male guardsmembers & male guards units of cowardice. Our language does not have the he/she defination in pronouns. 70 years ago my family had a neighbour who beat her wife, my grandmother went there and beat him up, she was woman widely respected in the village community.

Now from this cultural context I should accept the woman on pedestal attitude "some things a man has to earn" EH? smilies/eek.gif

In addition to being ancient, the woman on pedestal attitude is rather irreconsilable with attitudes that allow women to have power of personality.

smilies/biggrin.gif

Sorry. Around here it goes like this. Some things both sexes must earn, or do without. I am hardly ABLE to see theese matters any other way.

I may have just fallen for intentional provokation, but so what...


Janne Harju

[Genandra of Mirkwood]

The comparison of Arwen with Luthien is unfair, in that it doesn't take into account the role of elves in the Third Age as opposed to earlier ages. They are fading, and less directly involved in the battles of the Ring. Their role is to give aid and to hold down the "fortresses of goodness" they have established in Lorien, Imladris and the Grey Havens. If Arwen is a wimp, then so are Elrond and all the elves, save perhaps Legolas!

We can safely assume that Arwen is everything a great elven female would be, and that makes her a far sight grander, more noble, tougher and smarter than the stereotypical fainting female of epic literature. It's only if you're already assuming Tolkien's books are sexist that you would need "proof" of Arwen's liberated femininity.

[bombur]

Re: to Genandra of Mirkwood

I am sorry, but that is perhaps the most twisted logic that I’ve recently encountered.

Gen:
”It's only if you're already assuming Tolkien's books are sexist that you would need "proof" of Arwen's liberated femininity.”

Do you mean that only sexist author can include a female charachter who is NOT liberated? Poor Ibsen.

Gen:
”We can safely assume that Arwen is everything a great elven female would be”

Then we can safely assume everyone mentioned by name in the book to be everything a great eleven/human/dwarven/hobbit male/female is.

WHY ON EARTH CAN WE (arbitrarily) ASSUME something like that?????

Gen:
1 = ” We can safely assume that Arwen is everything a great elven female would be, and that makes her a far sight grander, more noble, tougher and smarter than...”
2 = ”The comparison of Arwen with Luthien is unfair, in that it doesn't take into account the role of elves in the Third Age as opposed to earlier ages. They are fading...”

I find it difficult to understand how you can fit theese two claims together?

Gen:
”If Arwen is a wimp, then so are Elrond and all the elves, save perhaps Legolas!”

It seems that now I have finally found my true self. I am a ax wielding barbarian who ill understand any other kind of power then that of arrow and knife. This becomes especially clear as I obviously fail to understand the importance of Elronds or say, Galadriels role as advisors, co-ordinators, suppliers, supporters, leaders and shielders. After all, Since I have failed to place Arwens name between the lines in every paragraph of the book where theese are evident, I must have overlooked those paragraphs entirely.


Janne Harju

[Lush]

Ah dearest bombur, no one's calling you a barabarian. In fact, no one is calling you anything at all. Please don't take arguments addressed at your deductions so personally.

You say that you and I have cultural differences, but I don't see so many. I was bred from a stock of Russian Cossacks, I currently study at one of the toughest universities in America, and have three jobs. You can deduct what you want from these this information (like the fact that I will soon burn out & go insane smilies/wink.gif ), but in the context of taking an active role in the world, in bettering my own life, and so on and so forth, I am no passive puppy.

What I do disagree on you with is your definition of "sex object", or, maybe, rather the perception of said label.

Frankly, I don't see why this term should have such negative connotations. In a way, the treatment of this term appears to me just as sexist as denying a woman the right to vote, etc.

The point is, I think a liberated woman should have choices. Wants to be President? Wonderful. Wants to sit at home and take care of her babies? Superb. Wants to be someone's mistress? Good for her.

I think that we should not take sex out of feminism. I think we should not lose respect for Arwen for what she did, or did not do. The point is, it appears that she lived her life the way she wanted to.

And as for the man having to earn certain things...Well, a man certainly has to earn me. As for everyone else, they can do whatever. Once again, it's about choice.

P.S. Milli Vanilli were a lyp-synching duo in the early 90's. Infamous for winning a Grammy, and having to give it up later on.

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Belin]

Oh, my. I…um… I’ll just dive in. smilies/smile.gif

Having a sex life and being a sex object are, of course, not the same thing at all. One can only be a sex object in the eyes of those who refuse to see one on other terms. This does not seem very applicable to Arwen; I think Tolkien’s conception of her is a rather different one. It is true that she seems like a prize at the end of RotK, especially since we don’t know her very well. I would argue, however, that to the extent that she does fill that role, she’s not a sexual prize, but a social one. When the hero becomes king, he gets to take to him a noble elven wife who will purify his blood and improve his right to rule over Middle-earth. Certainly. And we’ve hardly met her, so this is just about all we can see at the moment. But this is also a love match, and surely Tolkien went to the trouble of writing the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen for the very purpose of making that clear to us. She’s not (as she might seem to have been) simply a gift of goodwill from Elrond to Aragorn; on the contrary she exercises (and here’s some trendy postmodern feminist vocabulary for you) agency. As Lush points out, she chooses to marry Aragorn, and to make all the sacrifices that she makes for him, because she’s in love and it seems best to her (and not, you’ll notice, because she’s being pushed to by any kind of social construct, or even by Aragorn himself). We even see her at the moment of her choice and understand the forces between which she’s torn. An object? Nah, Arwen’s a person. And she certainly goes through as much suffering to get Aragorn as he does for her.

What kind of feminism is this that only allows you those two views of women, both negative? I’ve never heard anything like it!

As for her comments at Aragorn’s death, bombur, the quote in English is

not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to men, it is bitter to receive.

I call this wisdom. She’s not, in my view, suddenly whining about her mortality, but using the perspective it gives her as a source of compassion for the wicked Numenoreans. How many people are reevaluating their judgement of others at a time like this?

--Belin Ibaimendi

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[Lush]

Having a sex life and being a sex object are, of course, not the same thing at all.

You're quite right to call me on that Belin, and perhaps I needed to clarify my definition of the term "sex object."

In general, I believe that the greater precentage of women are, to a certain extent, "sex objects" in the eyes of men. This has nothing to do with the sexual choices they make, but rather with the general dynamic between the sexes (and nowhere is this more evident than on a college campus on a Friday night smilies/rolleyes.gif ).

The point I am trying to make is that almost any attractive woman can be branded a "sex object", whether she uses this "honor" to her own means or not is entirely up to her. In countries such as Thailand and Russia, for example, a huge amount of impoverished women have fallen back on their bodies as a means of survival. Of course, this is more than being a token "sex object", this is simple prostitution, yet I think these terms are linked to a great extent. I also think that unless the citizens of these said countries are willing to fix up their societies, they have no right to judge these women...But that's beside the point.

What I'm driving at is that female sex-appeal needs to get a little more respect, unless men themselves are willing to change (which I find highly improbable).

When Aragorn first meets Arwen, he is floored by her beauty, yes, but we ultimately get the sense that he didn't marry her just for sex (at the same time, we shouldn't deny the importance of sexual attraction in a number of succesful marriages). Arwen exhibits patience, foresight, restraint, and strength. Remember when she gazes at Frodo, and he feels as if he has been pierced? I don't think that this was Tolkien's effort to illustrate how "hot" she is, I think he's really giving us a taste for the whole magic and wonder of the Elf that is Arwen. It's one of my favorite parts of the book, actually.

As for the question of "well why didn't she go with the Fellowship?", have you ever thought about the fact that (besides the reasons that have already been listed, all of them quite logical) she might have just wanted to spend some time with her father and her people? She knew eventually that if Aragorn succeeded, she would part with those she loved, forever. Imagine that!

Why would she give up the last months with her family, in exchange for joining a quest she had barely anything to contribute to anyway, while putting the whole Fellowship at risk for bitterness and strife (imagine what Boromir, who always liked to have his way, would do if he suddenly took a liking to our Elven babe...)? Just food for thought, I guess.

[bombur]

Let us make this clear.

To my understanding sex object means exactly...
a) to be object as in not being subject. Eg. being target of actions and desires of others and not active action taker and someone whose desires would matter themselves.
b) being that because of sex. (eg. gender, not ”poking” smilies/wink.gif
... so the term is not synonymous with neither bimbo nor ”dedicated spouse.

Arwens role in the saga can be considered by some to be that of a sex object but not bimbo, if I understand theese things right. Also I might add that some feminists are somewhat less satisfied with the possibility of a woman ”livin her life through that of a man” as many queens or women behind great men do. If that is ones own choise I condemn that not. To choose life as homemaker or as a courtesan or anything, is not to be sex object as one is the active maker of the choises by ones OWN desires.

What comes to a man having to ”earn” a woman, all depends on what one means with that. Also the only right and wrong in that thought is whether one is satisfied with whatever type of men whose interrrest one EARNS with ones own attitude. I cannot fault anything in any other peoples priorities. ”Earning a woman” is dangerous consept because it might mean that woman is sex object or that the woman does not recognise reciprocity. With reciprocity I of course agree.

Arwen clearly makes her own choises. It really (sorry for this) takes a ”politically correct feminist” (I have few slightly of that sort as friends) to see her as sex object.

(sex object = something to be handed out as a prize. Weight on the word handed. Her story-role is that of a prize clearly. But whether she is ”handed out” or whether she is ”self handing prize” is what settles whether she is a sexobject.)

(She obviously is not a ”sexual” prize. In romantic and epic saga sexuality does not exist in that sense. If it did, Aragorn would have jumped to the sack with Eowyn and she had been filling the role of ”sexual” prize. Belin is in my opinion exactly right just about everything save Arwens wisdom. (I still say that the wise are slow to condemn and she was quick, eager even, to despice. THAT is why I see the scene as proof of little wisdom.))

I do not see her as sex object. I see her as a freewilled charachter that fills the story-role of a prize. I do not see her filling any other independent role in the story such as that of a diplomat.

Hence I originally considered and at least attempted to say, that I do not count her among the strongwilled/active/strong/mighty/etc. females of arda, but I do not see her as a proof of Tolkiens sexism either. I am doubtfull however whether I have managed to make this matter clear even yet.

Does she have to be Albert Einstein to catch Aragorns eye, become attracted to him and become rather good queen? No. What I tried originally to say was something of the sort that IF she were in the same category as Galadriel and Luthien as a charachter, then her actions were rather less commendable. Therefore she is a charachter rather more like the classical sex objects of literature, NOT a person to wield her own might and strenght, THOUGH I do NOT question her free and independent will. (Though some do with slight justification.)

Sigh... I wonder if this will end. I propably should kick the habit of trying to bring the basic deeper truths to light by over sort of ”categorical overemhasisations”.


Janne Harju

PS. Sorry if I wrote too harshly to Gennandra, but the logic WAS twisted. That is something that usually sets me off.

PPS. Belin... you asked what kind of feminism allows only two negative views of a woman... I can tell you that there is plenty of that in many feminists I know. Have you ever met theese people who seem to be ready to give tokarev neckshots as well as all kinds of funny labels to anyone whose personal choises of life seem to "uphold the patriarcasy." For some feminists everyone CHOOSING the life as a professional homemaker is evil traitor to the sisterhood. They are the same people who say openly her that the violence against men must not be spoken of as it takes attention from violence against women.

[bombur]

WOW

PPPS. I may have to correct my view on Arwens personality slightly. I just noted what the quote given by Belin contained. Translation between Finnish and English is always difficult as the languages are no more related then Finnish is to Russian, Chineese or Bantu. LOTR is perhaps the best made translation ever, but the meaning comes across definately as "despise". I have to think of this. Scorn I believe might have entirely different content.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Bravo, Lush, for standing up to pseudo-feminism, that trades one form of repression and rigidity for another. My dislike of the inept movie-Arwen does not extend to Tolkien's Arwen. She does in fact represent the classic romantic Medieval feminine ideal.. noble, gentle, wise, chaste, beautiful: but such qualities do not demonstrate sexism. Otherwise only a sword-wielding barbarian would be considered an 'acceptable' non-sexist female character, and we should ignore or deny the full range of female characteristics and capacities. Good and bad, strong and weak. That in and of itself implies a lack of self-worth, that we cannot handle any portrayal of women that doesn't express 'the best.' Or what we assume is best.

Look at our acceptance of the range of male characters in the LotR. Does anyone think that having a weak Wormtongue denies the nobility of Men, demonstrates Tolkien's anti-male sensibilities? Is anyone rushing to the defense of Denethor, on behalf of Men? So what need is there to defend Arwen, on behalf of all women?

What if Tolkien had put in the LotR a really miserably evil woman, a female version of Wormtongue. Would we think that demonstrated his hatred of women, or feel a need to defend Ms. Wormtongue? On behalf of all women? Why?

In a way there is a Ms. Wormtongue, in Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. Does anyone think this character is a demonstration of Tolkien's sexism? She is simply part of the panoply of female characters in LotR.

To demonstrate sexism you have to find a clear pattern. There is none. We have one classic beauty in Arwen, the Princess that is Won, whose hand had to be earned, though her heart was given long ago. A stock fairy-tale character from a man who sought to write... a fairy-tale. True, instead of the 20-year-old blond princess, the elf is learned and wise and noble. But this is a stock character. There is nothing 'sexist' or even wrong with it.

-Maril

[Bêthberry]

That classic fairy tale princess is also dark-haired, Maril. But I guess one of them had to be. smilies/wink.gif smilies/smile.gif

[TolkienGurl]

If Tolkien was sexist he would not have included Eowen killing the Nazgul - a man would have done it, probably Aragorn or Eomer. Galadriel would not have been one of the most important Elves in the Third Age - it would have been Elrond or Celeborn. Arwen was not a sex object. She was a character whom Aragorn was in love with, important to him and those who admire him in the story. Just because she or the other women were not given star parts doesn't mean there were sexist issues involved in the writing of the story. Anyway, it is my opinion that everyone is thinking way too much on this subject. Why do we have to bring personal/social problems (real or imaginary) into LOTR? These books were written a long time ago and modern issues should not be stressed in writings from a different time period. It really doesn't make sense why this topic was even brought up in the first place. Tolkien was not a sexist and to say so or even imply it is an insult to him and all his fans.
P.S. I read a comment on something about if a woman wants to be a man's mistress then "Good for her". That's not exactly good for women. I do believe in one's ability to make decisions concerning one's life, but something like that is absolutely wrong (on the part of the man and the woman) and degrading to women. And yes it is wrong and insulting to be thought of as a sex object.
P.P.S. the Lord of the Rings was written in a time that morals were still widely present in the general society. To imply that Aragorn would be only interested in Arwen eacuse of sex is a crazy misunderstanding and doesn't make sense.

[Lush]

P.S. I read a comment on something about if a woman wants to be a man's mistress then "Good for her". That's not exactly good for women. I do believe in one's ability to make decisions concerning one's life, but something like that is absolutely wrong (on the part of the man and the woman) and degrading to women. And yes it is wrong and insulting to be thought of as a sex object.

Well babe, it all depends on how you view sex, sexual dynamic between men and women, as well as the economic standing of women.
I agree that for most Western women, there are available far better occupations than mistress, sex object, or prostitute. This doesn't, however, apply to the rest of the world. You have to be a realist about these things. Unless we are willing to pluck out every one of the girls from half-way around the world out of their harems, give them an education and give them rights (which we are not, apparently), we should not grumble at their supposed lack of morals.

At the same time, a woman of the West should also be allowed to make her own choices regarding the men she sees, without being branded, to put it nicely, a "scarlet woman." If a woman wants to be a mistress, it's her right, as long as she consciously makes it. Can this be degrading? Of course, but marriage can be degrading as well. I'm European, so maybe I view this issue differently. I find it refreshing that no one in France makes a big deal out of Chirac's ladies (now, if they would only protest his corruption...). Frankly, if I, fed up with school and work, decided to take the year off, flee to Germany, and write my novel while occasionally entertaining visits from, say (for the sake of example only) Gerhard Schroeder, I would expect intelligent people not to judge me, in the same way that I do not judge them over whatever it is that they do in their spare time.

P.P.S. the Lord of the Rings was written in a time that morals were still widely present in the general society. To imply that Aragorn would be only interested in Arwen eacuse of sex is a crazy misunderstanding and doesn't make sense.

First off, society today is no less moral than it was yesterday. The only difference is that now we have the benefits of tabloid television, giving us daily updates on the supposed transgressions of world leaders and Hollywood actors. Back then, that which you call immorality was simply more or less kept under wraps. People had affairs and visited brothels, and did all sorts of awful and nearly-awful things. They just didn't go on Oprah to talk about it afterwards.

And as for "sex in the LOTR", well, we can't deny that Arwen was pretty, can we? We also can't deny that Aragorn was a man. Put the two together, and you can definitely arrive at the conclusion that there was sexual attraction there. Tolkien chose not to write about it, and good for him, I wouldn't want it any other way. I do agree with you that the idea that Aragorn's love for Arwen stemmed only from his need to bed her is a pretty cynical one. She was far more special than that, I believe. So we agree on that. smilies/wink.gif

[bombur]

What comes to the fair lady Arwen (still), I agree with Marils comment: ”That in and of itself implies a lack of self-worth, that we cannot handle any portrayal of women that doesn't express 'the best.' Or what we assume is best.”

We have (here) to a great degree freed women from being chained to the home. Now people like me and some others are speaking about setting men free from the chains that bind them away from home into the employment and definition of human value by adherance to a quota. Reason would suggest that this sort of thing would be in the interrest of women as well (making woman more able to compete in the jobmarket as the employer attitude: ”are you 25 years old well educated person who has had and raised ones (inevitable) kids already?” starts to apply to both sexes), but no. For some people who (erraneously - perhaps) claim the title of feminist this seems to be a threat. They seem dedicated to force the traditional stereotype of man with all of its burdens and expectation-stresses, upon all women. Woman is yet not free of the social expectation to simultaneously be sexmachine and mother and homekeeper (partially because sharing of such burdens/joys is not encouraged) while some people are eagerly downloading the provider and most-muscular-caveperson-of-the-office neuroses on top of their shoulders.

It seems that now that equal pay has been reached and equal opportunity is pretty much here, theese people see as their next aim rising the female suicide rate to equal that of men... not lowering the male one to the level of women. in my opinion, equality is not something about setting limits of acceptable behavior and way of life and setting new stereotypical obligations, but removing the limits and obstructions and opening new choises actively.

What I am saying with this rant is, why MUST Arwen posses acchievement as diplomat or academician or something in addition to being a rather good queen and freewilled person who CHOSE that? Cant you please leave her be. You are opressing her. smilies/smile.gif

****

What comes Tolkiengirls ps... I generally tend to be a bit negatively disposed towards people using the word ”absolute” in context of their opinions especially when refering to the way of life of other people. While an associate of mine certainly provides me with ample evidence that background in prostitution does not promote mental stability and empathy, then what exactly is to be done about this? And I tell you ”lets disaprove of it” (it?) is social thinking at the level of a five year old.

Though I do have a feminist friend who, like Lush seems to have read the ”Camelian” once too often (”...while occasionally entertaining visits from, say Gerhard Schroeder...” ). I daresay that prostitution is almost never a totally free life choise, unlike Lush seems to think (”I agree that for most Western women, there are available far better occupations...” ). There are plenty of western women in prostitution due to the fact that one needs money, and preferably comfortable amount of that. Brutal truth is that not everyone gets to be a lawyer or a doctor or even to do something so degrading as marry a king. Speaking of sustenance purely, as majority of humans do not go to work because it is a ”true calling” to them, the income level – job discomfort index (speaking figuratively) of prostitution is depending on the person a bit higher or lower then that in telemarketting or wiping urine off floors... (I am only estimating though as I have personally tried only two of the three). It of cource fits neatly to this pattern, that I have for example heard of cutting the welfare of single mothers in US. And talk of harems is a cruel joke when according to the UN the greatest amount of sex slaves in the world is in the US with European imports from East steadily increasing and starting to compete.

In such world speaking of ”absolute wrong” of the ”way of life”, ”chosen” is in my opinion nothing short of either brutality or ignorance.


Janne Harju


PS. Lush: ”First off, society today is no less moral than it was yesterday.”

It is no less ETHICAL. It is less moral. To my understanding the two differ in morality being something determined by society and ethics internal to person. Result is called pluralism and I applaud the devlopment.

... or at least the societys set norms are subtler. This also means that a writer with less courage to follow ones dedication and with less openmindedness then Tolkien, can today exersice ones hypocricy by scorning him as sexist for not writing in few shallow chainmailbikini babes.

PPPS Lush: ”...Arwen was pretty... ...Aragorn was a man. Put the two together, and you can definitely arrive at the conclusion that there was sexual attraction there.”

You need to work on your idea of men a bit more. If I spoke of women with such generalisations, you might have many terms and labels ready for me and in this as in all other things I believe in reciprocity... there are no one-way streets. Those that are one-way, I call problems.

Otherwise I tend to agree with you. Save perhaps commenting that double morale still exists at the time of tabloid tv and people, even celebrities, go to brothels and few really care if the girl there has been lured from poorer countries by promises of employment and instead drugged, beaten, threatened, exploited. This by the way is something that happens in places like Las Vegas and Hamburg. Would not bet about France being so innocent either.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[Lush]

Bombur, bombur, must you make these debates so personal? I have no idea what the Camelian is, will you enlighten me?

Furthermore, I am not here to glorify prostitution, or make it seem "innocent", or whatever. Having been raised in Russia, I do see it as a viable choice for women who would otherwise starve. As for those girls who get maliciously trapped into this lifestyle, well, they are not prostitutes in my book, they are slaves. There is a difference, and we shouldn't confuse the two.

As for the issue of the morals/ethics of society, I don't know man. Was society more moral at the time when women didn't have the vote? When black people were being lynched? When children slaved away in factories? I mean, I just don't see us being any more or less moral than we were a hundred years ago. Calling Tolkien "sexist" isn't a result of poor morals either, I think it's mostly the result of being uninformed.

As for Aragorn being a "man" and Arwen being "pretty", well...uh, the last time I checked, heterosexual men usually tend to be sexually attracted to pretty women. This is not a generalization, or an insult, this is a fact of nature. If it makes you happy, I will gladly state that heterosexual women tend to be attracted to handsome men. I mean, if I had a dollar for every time I gazed lecherously at a man, I'd be on a vacation in Ibiza right now...I really don't understand what's wrong with that.

Now of course, the only question left is, will I sell myself to Schröder? Only if he overthrows a Dark Lord, and sets me up with some nice digs at Minas Tirith! smilies/tongue.gif

[Belin]

I wonder if I should ask who Gerhard Schroder is?

Belin is in my opinion exactly right just about everything

smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif Now THERE'S something I don't hear every day!!
...All right, as I overcome my shock...Does that include the part where I say Aragorn included "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" in Appendix A for the very purpose of reducing the feeling that Arwen is a prize? Just making sure I'm understood.

But while I'm here... Lush, your point about respect for female sex-appeal is an interesting one. On some level, it troubles me.. I think this has to do with the shade of Mary Wollstonecraft sitting at my shoulder and reminding me that people need to be more than that to society. And then again, I don't really like the idea of power, influence, or quality of life being based on beauty (perhaps because I am not beautiful?). (Then again, you can often find me at my friend's house staring at Peja Stojakavic on the TV, so who am I to talk?)

And, incidentally...

Have you ever met theese people who seem to be ready to give tokarev neckshots as well as all kinds of funny labels to anyone whose personal choises of life seem to "uphold the patriarcasy." For some feminists everyone CHOOSING the life as a professional homemaker is evil traitor to the sisterhood.
That's not feminism. That's just revolutionism. The purpose of feminism is to empower women, not to force them into another kind of mandatory lifestyle. I haven't met them actually.. I tend to spend time with real feminists who sound a lot more like Lush. smilies/tongue.gif (then again, Maril just said that, didn't she?)

And, TolkienGurl (not to pick on you, lots of people have said similar things, and welcome by the way smilies/wink.gif ) all this about sexism implied by women not going out and killing lots of scary monsters is rather silly, actually. It implies that killing scary monsters is the only way to have value (perhaps we could dig some sexism out of that?!), which I hope is not the case in a semi-civilized society??

--Belin Ibaimendi

[Lush]

Gerhard Schröder is the newly reelected (whoo hooo!!!) German Chancellor.

your point about respect for female sex-appeal is an interesting one. On some level, it troubles me.. I think this has to do with the shade of Mary Wollstonecraft sitting at my shoulder and reminding me that people need to be more than that to society. And then again, I don't really like the idea of power, influence, or quality of life being based on beauty

Not only do I understand that, I agree with Mary, and with you. I don't think I ever said that sex appeal should have tremendous power and influence. But what I am saying is that the repression, denial, and denounciation (sp?) of it, have negative effects.

I mean, look at American society today. Only a country founded by Puritans would produce a "phenomenon" such as Britney Spears.

[bombur]

Oh sorry Lush... I’m the kind of person to make everything personal... I don’t do smalltalk. Either discussion is academical truthseeking discussion of interresting QUESTION or it is open and truthseeking debate of issue/value-choise of which I have strong personal opinion... or I listen silently... I try not to judge PEOPLE, but if I consider someone to be in error, I do critisise the opinion written with all the subtlety of a doberman. Sometimes I erraneously critisise the person as well. I try to be open and tolerant to similar attitude to my own opinions and I hope that you are tolerant to my manner and take it with a grain of salt not to be offended by it. I am sorry, Tolkiengurl for both misreading your alias and for my quite agressive attitude. I consider your words to be totally unapprovable still though.

Camelian is a quite romantisiced book and movie of the life of a woman living as courtesan (subtely paid mistress) and dying of tuberculosis in the 1800’s (1800’s, I think at least...).

I said, that to a degree I agree with Lush. ”I do see it as a viable choice for women who would otherwise starve” was what she said. I tried to say this: one should not consider it a free choise and one should not further victimise those who END UP to it, even by ones disapproving attitudes.

Basically it seems to me that we are in disagreement over the first issue. The choise of life in prostitution has all the same charachteristics that were given to a factory worker in the 1816, do this or starve. It is by no means a free choise. Even in Finland the system is such that the choise is, do this or live in quite a discomfort and need. I have heard of a person who made a free choise of becoming a prostitute, but she is exemption, not the rule. Typically, but not always, a prostitute in Finland is a Russian semi-permanent resident / tourist with the first kind of choise or a finnish case of person who is a fallthrough case of the social security network often also having other problems she did not get help with like drug use or emotional problems. This is a case somewhere between those two choises.

Lush: ”As for Aragorn being a "man" and Arwen being "pretty", well...uh, the last time I checked, heterosexual men usually tend to be sexually attracted to pretty women.” Last time that I checked heterosexual men are attracted to some but not all women and ”pretty” was no guarantee (though perhaps a bonus for the chance) of the attraction being there. I of cource to a degree see these things subjectively. Maybe there are men out there somewhere who really conform to the stereotype of an ape drooling after everyone with d+ cupsize and b- waist. I have noticed men drooling over slightly different things in real life then in TV however, myself included. Including myself does not mean that I know it all, but at least gives me one more unit of undeniable source material then you Lush has. smilies/wink.gif Why do men sleep with the lookers and marry the grey types anyway (just to go from one invalid stereotype to another)?

Belin: ”...about sexism implied by women not going out and killing lots of scary monsters... It implies that killing scary monsters is the only way to have value...” Incidentally, of this I agree completely. This is my basis for criticism to the chaimailbikini-bimbo stereotype in the literature. I’m not sure if I have yet said that in this discussion, but I think that it is not real equality that a woman kicks mans in the grotch in a movie. Real equality is that a woman can be a hero in a movie without adhering to the stereotypical behavior patterns of male heroes (and that also even a MAN can be hero without kicking people in the grotch.)

What comes to sexappeal as a source of power.... whatever happens that is just reality. We can discuss degrees of its precence and desirability till sahara floods and hell freezes, but it will not go away even if the whole world did give lipservice to the idea that it should not be so. Myself being somewhat involved in politics I know for a fact that power IS a social functioning of people. Power is negotiation, pressure, conflict, allying, yielding and then more negotiation. I once chatted with a comerade in a cafeteria. We both are overweight and have a dose of charisma or strong precence though perhaps not the looks. We both recognised the fact that we shamelessly use flirting and sensuality for influence. Me being man and she a woman, we use out own sexuality in somewhat different manner, but we definately use it. And let me empahsise the this is not about sleeping with someone for favors or giving favors for sex , that actually wont get you far or give you much. We started a spontaneous debate to find a comerade who does not do this. We found two (out of maybe hundred we know.) Both were heawyweight politicians, had great experteese in limited subject, relentless working habits and all of the manners of a heawy combat tank. Everyone uses it exept for those so well established to a role and position that it would actually hinder and not help. And this does not base the power on looks but rather on skill to use ones own mind, putting us right back at squre one.


Janne Harju

[Lush]

Sweet, now that we're back at square one, let us have clarity.

Bombs, dearest, of course I understand your habit of getting personal. I just think that practicing restraint may prevent this thread from being closed down.

Haven't heard of Camelian, but wouldn't mind checking it out, for recreational reading.

As for the prostitution issue in general, I think we are not just beating, we are pulverizing a dead horse. 'Cause we pretty much seem to agree.

Last time that I checked heterosexual men are attracted to some but not all women and ”pretty” was no guarantee (though perhaps a bonus for the chance) of the attraction being there. I of cource to a degree see these things subjectively. Maybe there are men out there somewhere who really conform to the stereotype of an ape drooling after everyone with d+ cupsize and b- waist. I have noticed men drooling over slightly different things in real life then in TV however, myself included. Including myself does not mean that I know it all, but at least gives me one more unit of undeniable source material then you Lush has. Why do men sleep with the lookers and marry the grey types anyway (just to go from one invalid stereotype to another)?

I think you're taking my quote out of context. I was stating a simple fact of biology. Men lick their lips at women they consider attractive, and women do the same for men they consider attractive (or, uh, at least I do). Bringing in waist measurements here is, I think, a little beside the point.

As for the whole stereotype of men marrying the grey ones....Well, maybe that's because a great deal of ordinary (i.e. average) men can't keep "the lookers". smilies/wink.gif The exceptional must be paired with the exceptional. Actually, that's more of an opinion of mine than anything. Seems that it's an opinion that Tolkien might have shared, at least based on the story of Arwen and Aragorn. I don't believe in most generalizations. They make me yawn.

[bombur]

”just think that practicing restraint may prevent this thread from being closed down”

Well... I think that if this happens, then I just have ended up in the wrong forum. I mean, when I signed to this site, I noticed no disclaimer: ”this site onbly for those humanists who care nought and are not involved in discussions they start, we desire only discussion for which none of the participants give a **** ” The last few posts, we may have gotten bit too involved and discussion has drifted bit more from sexist stereotypes in fantasy to things like prostitution... but now let us get back to the point.

What comes to beating a dead horse, I merely stated thet a pretty woman attraction neccesiates not. Therefore there was more between Aragorn and Arwen then that she was ”pretty”.

”Pretty” is rather meaningless anyway. What is pretty? If one ”is”, ”pretty”... why should I care?


JH

[bombur]

Why do phrases like "to give a sheisse" diseappear around here? In an earlier mail of mine I made some categoriations of some valar comparewd to some mythic goddesses, saying that unlike the historical myth, Tolkien did not make *****es out of them, and it disappeared." I dont get it?

JH

[bombur]

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

My point exactly. If womens stydy graduates in Tampere university can use that word in the final debate texts, then why cannnot one here?

The term by the way was *******, and the issue Tolkiens valar having none adhering to the certain stereotype that Hera, Isis, Friga etc. adhered to.

JH

*EDIT - I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you spaced out the word before you read my post.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Mister Underhill]

Okay, bombur, old boy – couple of points to clear up here.

1. This button - http://forum.barrowdowns.com/ubb/edit_ubb6.gif – allows you to edit your posts. Learn it. Use it. Three posts in a row are unnecessary when you can edit.
2. It should be pretty obvious why curse words get zapped out. This is a family-friendly (and at its best, a somewhat scholarly) board. We don’t take our cue from Tampere University final debate texts; we take it from the writings of the man whose work inspired this board.
3. You can care passionately about your point of view in a discussion and still debate with common courtesy. In fact, here you must be able to do that if you want to hang around for long. I’ve seen you pull aggressive, overly-personal rants on other people in this thread and elsewhere, and that style doesn’t cut it. The explanation, “That’s just the way I am, take me with a grain of salt” doesn’t cut it either. If you feel like going off on someone, count to ten or something and then think again.

I’m not trying to chase you off or anything, I’m just letting you know the baseline rules that we ask everyone here to follow. A word to the wise is sufficient.

Now back to prostitution and lip-smacking...

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[bombur]

OK mr underhill...

1. This button...
i kind of know how to use it, I put three posts in a row kind of to ram a point home... it would not have shortened it a bit if I had put it all in a one post.

2. It should be pretty obvious why curse words get zapped out...

Yes... in principle I kind of understand that. I have learned english with phrases like "I do not give a X", which in my mind fluently translate into phrases like "en piittaa pätkääkään" = "I do not care the shortest bit." It just seems so fustrating to attempt to learn a new english language in order to be family friendly. Is the gone with the wind ohrase "I do not give ea damn" ok then? And then the other case... A word that is perhaps a curseword as such, if it is used as a clear definition of a stereotype... I mean word that has been defined as curseword for insulting women and then used in technically for defining why someone does not insult women... it disappears... that makes it all difficult.

3...

well... I must admit that you are at least partially right in this... I will try to bottle the edge.

"Now back to prostitution and lip-smacking..."

Not to prostitution please. I will be hanging from the tapestries by my claws like a cat in about five seconds again. But I think we could go back to the stereotypes of women in fantasy and tolkien...


JH

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[Mister Underhill]

1. Ram your point home with intelligent arguments, not multiple posts. We ask others not to do it. I'm asking you not to do it.
2. I understand you're not a native English speaker. When in doubt, err on the side of polite language. If you see something get censored by the board, that word is probably not considered polite in normal conversation amongst English speakers. Choose a synonym. www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com) is a good English language reference and has a thesaurus.
3. Thank you.

[bombur]

"2. I understand you're not a native English speaker. When in doubt, err on the side of polite language. If you see something get censored by the board, that word is probably not considered polite in normal conversation amongst English speakers. Choose a synonym. www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com) is a good English language reference and has a thesaurus."

Sorry.

That kind of indicates that maybe you cannot fluently speak a language foreign to you. You learn languages by phrases and lines of thought. If you keep consulting thessurus, then you have not learneds them at all.

I do not mean that I err. I mean that I have, please forgive, learned unclean english. And I have not learned to see "inappropriateness" in all the phrases I might use. This aside from those that might also have thechnical meaning like the b+ words when discussing of goddeses."

I will though try to keep in mind that if something is taken out then it may not be polite term. If used technically however, I do not get it.

JH


PS. Ok then Friga, Hera, Isis unlike any of the valar, are (according to enfin thessaurus and according to the afore mentioned graduations debate paper), old women, vixens, hags or missuses... and now no-one understood what they are.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[Lush]

Hey bombs, I understand you're not a native English speaker (as a matter of fact, neither am I, but I've lived here for 8 years, so it's easier for me), so maybe you are just misinterpreting my posts.

I used a broad statement:"heterosexual men usually tend to be sexually attracted to pretty women."

You narrow it down and write: "a pretty woman attraction neccesiates not."

You're criticizing a statement that I never made. Just FYI.

Therefore there was more between Aragorn and Arwen then that she was ”pretty”.

Yes. And that's exactly what I have been saying for the past page or so.

My only real problem is with anyone who says that normal sexual attraction between a man and a woman, or Aragorn and Arwen, is somehow dirty, wrong, etc.

[bombur]

Yes Lush... Basically we are in agreenment about the main issue. But I do not accept all the implications that your words carry. As far as I can see, this whole latest debate started from, similar disagreenment. Of implications in my words, not all could approve of.


JH


PS. dear mister Underhill, I'd like to add, that I did indeed space out the word in the earlier post before reading yours. Even after reading this post, you refer to, I just assumed that it was a quirk of some filter. After the lates post of yours I know better. Basically I was complimenting Tolkien for giving his "goddeses" healthiness of charachter that those of normal historical myth do not have. Within theese set boundaries of language I cannot explain how so.

PPS. And by the way, in earlier times (and to a degree still) the attitude in at least regions of finland was that "the honor of a house is solid man and stern "akka"..." I cannot help but find you sexists when you consider the best (though very inadequate) translation for words like "akka" as a curseword or a insulting word. Old woman could be used as well, exept that "akka", "ämmä", "muija" or "eukko" is not neccesarily old. Issue is a loudmouthed person, holding degree of authority and perhaps also using it rather despotically and vindicatively.

Or (adding later) maybe I am simply totally in error. Perhaps the B-word does not carry any implications like theese and english language simply does not have a translation. This is going to puzzle me for the rest of the local day.

Further later... Perhaps I indeed am not entirely maintaining emotional unattached objectivity conserning the issues here and further, perhaps we do not totally shaer a language either. So what comes to this thread, I think I'll just close my mouth. But thanks for the discussion and sorry for the ocasional outbursts.


[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This thread had wandered a long way from the original question and lost any Tolkien-relatedness that it had. It now appears to be a discussion of personal, contemporary viewpoints on sexism, feminism and prostitution. Those who wish to continue that train of thought should establish personal contact by PM, e-mail or whatever.

I am closing the thread until someone can convince me (by sending me a PM about the topic, not about persons!) that s/he has something Tolkien-related to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said. Required reading: all three pages of this thread and whatever else shows up upon entering 'sexism' or 'sexist' into the search function.

'The Books' is for Middle-earth discussions. That is why the Barrow-Downs site exists. Let's talk Tolkien!

PS to bombur - Your PM function is not enabled. Anyone who wishes to contact you personally cannot do so. Please re-enable it to give other board members the possibility to write to you.