Lord of the rings, like the middle ages of England, of course had many famous women. But did you here or learn half as much about them as you did say, their brothers/husbands/sons etc.
I think, since they're is no use denying it, that since men ruled the world, women were truly less important to it's history. Of course they were very important, bearing the children that did great deeds and some were heroes and healers and people of high liniage, but really, they were not as important in the shaping of the world today. That is, at least, what the history books want us to believe.
In my opinion, women were just as important, but they were not portrayed to be. That's the important part right there. Because the stories and the scrolls and the wall carvings held men in higher status, that's how we remember things. It can't be changed and it can't be helped.
Tolkien, who wanted to be very realistic(as much as possible) I think was obligated to depict women exactly as they did hundreds of years ago, nessesary, but not as important. There were the warrior women in tales, but that's what Eowen represents. Arwen represents the beautiful damsil left behind which in most cases was most accurate, and Galadriel was kind of like the queens back in the renessance, queen Victoria for example. She was so powerful, that no one seemed to think anything of the fact she was a woman.
But now our history is changed, and if Tolkien had written books about the present time, he would have put in more female power. He was just following the average real stories of of past with LORT. And he did in flawlessly.
|