The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

bombur · 09-15-2002, 09:52 PM

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&#8221 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
... 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.

09-15-2002, 09:52 PM	#93
bombur Wight Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: finland Posts: 126	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&#8221 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ... 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.