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. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
****
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 ]
|