Eowyn and feminism and Tolkien

[Mithalwen]

No. (The library is about to chuck me out..I will explain later - but DEFINITELY NO!)

[Lindale]

It is misleading, but no. Warriors and healers aren't women's cup of tea in Tolkien; Eowyn's shift from one to the other doesn't mean she "degraded" herself or such. I like to think of her shift as the transition of the whole atmosphere from defending themselves with the sword and shield to healing the wounds of battle.

Of course there are oppressed women, like Erendis and Rian (who was more pathetic, in my opinion). And I don't deny Eowyn had her oppressed moments too. (Like, the way she got stuck with a sick Theoden, and her powerlessness when Theodred died and her brother wasn't there. But remember that the good guys do have their share of oppressed moments too.) And of course there'll be arguments that perhaps Galadriel isn't really a feminine woman. But for now--I'm writing a paper due in three hours!--I'm gonna have to say, Eowyn's shift from shield-maiden to healer, her shift from Theoden's caretaker to a lover of Aragorn to slayer of the Witch King to Faramir's wife doesn't make her any less valuable, any less a hero (or heroine, if you will).

I don't think Tolkien had contempt for feminism like, say, August Strindberg. Think Morwen, Ancalime, Luthien (arguably!!). Tolkien may have a dearth of female protagonists, but that doesn't really prove an author's, to use your word, contempt for feminism.

(Someone please post the link to the Ooh La La Luthien thread please. I think it's pretty much related. Sorry I haven't got time!)

[Rumil]

Here you go

Ooh la la Luthien

I think on Eowyn, Tolkien's take on Boromir and Faramir is relevant. Both were warriors, Boromir the more renowned, but solely concerned with war and politics, whereas Faramir was more interested in lore and culture, though still an effective leader.

JRRT evidently liked Faramir a lot more, and thought him the better man for being a warrior when needed, but being a man of peace by preference. The same seems to go for Eowyn.

[Lush]

LOL

How did I KNOW my thread was going to come up here?

Anyway, to answer your original question, Elmo, I think the answer is yes and no. Certainly Tolkien had his own ideas about women - some of which he ended up giving up on, from what I understand. I don't know what that means in the context of Eowyn. I personally don't like the fact that she became a healer, but I also like her words to Aragorn, at the end. Tolkien didn't quite tie her up with a pretty little bow.

[Nogrod]

One also needs to remember the times and the culture back then - and even if this discussion has been made I think a few times already - Tolkien's quite conservative views on many issues.

It is interersting indeed to see how PJ and his team had to artificially build up more central roles for females in the movies just because there was not enough in the books. I mean at the same time many of us (myself included) scorn the films for trying to please mass-audiences with all the horrible twists and turns of a blockbuster-film - the fact that Arwen has a lot larger role than in the books is just another facet of that same idea. So in a sense for example Legolas skating and Arwen substituting Glorfindel are the same thing: adjusting the story to today's requirements?

But coming to feminism the issue looks a lot more complicated I think. The thing we now know as feminism today is something which - even if it follows from the ideas of the utilitarians and the suffragettes of the 19th century - is basically a creation of the existentialists, 1960's, the various post-feminisms of the 80's & 90's etc. So obviously Tolkien couldn't have a contempt towards an idea much more radical he could have even think about...

And another issue that kind of comes to mind is making the difference between what an author hails as truth or goodness - or just the right order of things - in his own world-view, and what the people in the universe the author has created think about those issues. Surely Tolkien was looking at the great mythologies and looking at our history they tend to be "male-centered" stories. But he had also quite extensive knowledge of fex. the Kalevala which brings forward many independent and central female characters (like Galadriel in Tolkien's writings).

So it is a bit more complicated issue I'm afraid. Well, happy to be afraid of that as all simple things are usually quite boring...

[skip spence]

In Laws and customs of the Eldar Tolkien describes how high-Elven society looked upon gender-roles and such. I don't think it's unfair to assume that this is pretty much Tolkien's own ideal, especially since these morals are also indirectly expressed in many other parts of his tale.

He writes that the natural inclinations of the neri and nissi (men and women) were in some ways different, and that other differences were brought about by custom. Healing and caring about others were something nissi or women were more inclined to do, while the invention of new things and waging war was an area normally reserved for neri. I suppose Tolkien is saying that men and women (of the Noldor) generally had different comparative advantages, to borrow a term from economic theory.

However, Tolkien is very clear that these divisions were not set in stone, and that women might indeed be great warriors and men healers without there being anything wrong with that. He writes:

Originally Posted by HoME X (Laws and customs...)

...all these things, and other matters of labour and play, or of deeper knowledge concerning being and the life of the World, may at times be pursued by any among the Noldor, be they neri or nissi.

The thing is, I get the feeling that Tolkien, being a gentle sort of conservative, indeed though that a women's place is rather at home, healing, nursing and preserving. However, there is no sign (in his ME books) that he thinks less of women than of men because of this (or any other reason) or that he disapproves of strong women who step out of their traditional gender roles when this is necessary, like Eowyn. On the contrary, the sentiment I get is one of great admiration. But when the necessity is gone, and Eowyn is returning to more, well, "feminine pursuits" this is not regressing to a lesser state in any way. She does is freely without diminishing herself or bending her will to Faramir.

Rumil is spot on really:

I think on Eowyn, Tolkien's take on Boromir and Faramir is relevant. Both were warriors, Boromir the more renowned, but solely concerned with war and politics, whereas Faramir was more interested in lore and culture, though stil an effective leader.

JRRT evidently liked Faramir a lot more, and thought him the better man for being a warrior when needed, but being a man of peace by preference. The same seems to go for Eowyn.

And as Nogrod says, Tolkien is certainly not showing contempt for "feminism". That particular term is completely irrelevant in relation to these stories.

Originally Posted by Lindale

I don't think Tolkien had contempt for feminism like, say, August Strindberg

Ha! I'm glad Strindberg is off topic so I don't have to go there.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Y'know, when I was a kid and first read LotR, I never thought that Eowyn was putting aside a traditionally male role and taking on a traditionally female one. I wasn't quite sure what I thought about it, but looking back now (especially after having gone through years of therapy to overcome the effects of being born into a highly abusive family, in which the controlling parent didn't allow anyone to choose their role in the family, much less in life), things are clearer. Eowyn in Rohan was chafing under what she perceived to be a thankless role that was forced upon her, that of staying home and caring for Theoden while her brother rode off to the excitement and freedom and glory of war. I don't think she was bothered by the "feminine role," since she genuinely loved and cared for Theoden, and had apparently done enough as a strong leader to make the people of Rohan love and respect her, and want her to lead and help defend them in the absence of the king. In this, she shows that she has both leadership and nurturing qualities. It was the whisperings of Wormtongue that made her discontent, with her apparent lot in life, and in herself (as Gandalf points out to Eomer while Eowyn lies stricken in the Houses of Healing). I don't think the tale of Eowyn shows a contempt for feminism, or a belief that women should "stay in their place." I believe it's a little morality play of its own about the evils of heart and soul that befall a person when they deny who and what they are in their own right. By rebelling against her life in Edoras and desiring to ride away to war, Eowyn was denying the part of her that truly was a healer and nurturer. Wormtongue had made her think that these parts of herself were mean and worthless, that the only thing worthwhile in life was the glory of battle; it was another way of weakening Rohan from within, as Denethor's use of the palantir weakened Gondor from within. When Eowyn says she will be a shield maiden no more, she is making a choice free of manipulation, and accepting a part of herself she had been rejecting. She never says she will cease being a leader, but she has now had a taste of the reality of war, and glory won on the battlefield, and thus can now make a choice concerning the direction of her life that is based on experience rather than conjecture. She is no longer denying her true self.

Or maybe she just decided the grass was greener on that side of the fence.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lush

I personally don't like the fact that she became a healer, but I also like her words to Aragorn, at the end. Tolkien didn't quite tie her up with a pretty little bow.

Lush m'dear, miss you, long time no see.

Quick questions only partway thru the thread: When the war is over, what's a royal sheildmaiden to do? And King Eomer is wise to her now. If there are skirmishes with leftover orcs on the border, we'll send some good lads to handle it, but as for you, sis, Sorry-- put the horse back in the barn.

And once she moves to Gondor, do you really think Faramir would watch and shrug as she armed and rode off?

IMO, being a healer is self-sacrificial, not for the timid, and requires courage. It's a paradigm shift. Aragorn, after the battle, put in his time as a healer, and it was an undeniable sign of royalty and majesty.