Strong women

[arelendil]

I have heard of, as I'm sure we all have, that Tolkien had somthing against woman. Now I was thing on this and came up with a total different answer.
In every book that I've read by Tolkien, woman are high and noble. they aren't made to fight and get killed they're too beautiful and precious. now some people take this as sexist or what ever, but I thing Tolkien places woman on high pedestals and lifts them above the men! i think that tolkien had great respect for the woman in his story, and didn't give them bad parts, okay there aren't many but the ones that are there are more important than the men! Arwen is above Aragorn, Galadriel is above Celeborn (and everyone else) and Eowyn kills the witch king something No man can do!

[TolkienGurl]

This kind of topic was thoroughly discussed in the thread titled: Are Tolkien's Books Sexist? It went way off topic so to anyone who posts here, don't do the same!

BTW, I agree with you!

Just a helpful bit of information.
~TolkienGurl~ [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[Arwen1858]

I agree, too. I think that thought is ridiculous! Like you said, Arwen, Galadriel, and Eowyn were above some of the men!! It really bugs me when people say he was against women, he was a women-hater, and stuff like that. I don't see how they can think that!
Arwen, Queen of Gondor

[Diamond18]

People who say that Tolkien was anti-woman don't take into account that he was born and raised in the Victorian era (or the tail-end, anyway). It was part of Victorian culture to put women on a pedistal and view them as angelic beings. Sometimes I wouldn't mind that....

[Lush]

This kind of topic was thoroughly discussed in the thread titled: Are Tolkien's Books Sexist? It went way off topic so to anyone who posts here, don't do the same!

Precaution noted, Gurl. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

It was part of Victorian culture to put women on a pedistal and view them as angelic beings. Sometimes I wouldn't mind that....

The only problem with the Victorian treatment of women, as well as Tolkien's portrayal of them is the fact that the above ideal of an angel on a pedestal is about as real as the Tooth Fairy.

[Diamond18]

The only problem with the Victorian treatment of women, as well as Tolkien's portrayal of them is the fact that the above ideal of an angel on a pedestal is about as real as the Tooth Fairy.

*gasp* The Tooth Fairy isn't real????

Okay, seriously. Yes, I know that view is fairy tale stuff (and I was joking about wanting it to be real!). What I mean is that back then it was not viewed as degrading for a woman to be left at home.

Tolkien doesn't adhere totally to the Victorian standard, of course. Yes, his females are a bit...too perfect, and take a back seat most of the time. But though in his books you have the stay-at-homes like Arwen you also have Éowyn, Haleth, and Luthien who were not always docile.

Tolkien, actually, knew that the Victorian view (angel on pedistal) was erroneous. He said so in a letter to Micheal Tolkien. (Letter 43)

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong....It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game....It's centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity — of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves — the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril.

I did a little editing to get around to the point faster (the elipses) and bolded the point. But I don't believed I changed Tolkien's intent by doing so.

[Elenna]

Personally, I think life on a pedestal, high above all the men, would be a bit dull. I am a card-carrying "one of the guys", and all of my friends know that I would break their legs if they tried to put me on any pedestal. I would much prefer to be part of the scene than to stand above it and be worshipped.

Plus, you'd only pick up really tall guys.

[elfling]

I agree that FRRT wasn't a woman hater. His views were more like those of his time. Women were not usually in the action but he did portray them as intelligent and kind people, often leaders and not in a negative way. Today is a different culture but still not as many women are in the role of warrier ect. but the choices are there. I myself would rather go with the fellowship than sit on a pedistal and inspire them as Arwen does. But as Queen of Gondor I bet she does alot more than sit around on a pedistal.

[Raefindel]

I find Tolkien's ideas of women to be a little ahead of his time. In his era, for instance, if a woman was taken in captivity or kidnapped, as Luthien or Celebrian were, she was then considered "spoiled" and no man would have her. Tolkien does not subscribe to this philosophy. These women were considered brave and valliant and were given the respect due to someone who had gone through the "school of hard knocks".

[Carannillion]

Of course Tolkien was no sexist. As many of you have so thoroughly proved before me, he actually held women in high regard. It is, however, with Tolkien's writings as with all others. They grow old, because the society changes. At the time, Tolkien was afraid, perhaps, that putting the women further up front would come hard back at him. He rather used subtlety when it comes to the women, and those who believe that Tolkien was a sexist have simply not realized that they need to read his books with a different set of eyes if they want to get to know the women. Analyze, re-read, add a little imagination, stir and serve warm... Voilá!

[TolkienGurl]

Also, people need to realize that since Tolkien wrote these books so long ago, we cannot judge them by todays standards, or what people believe as right, or sexist, or whatever. People had totally different lifestyles back then.

[amyrlis]

Here are the opinions I shared (and still have) on the previous thread regarding sexism in Tolkien's writings.

--------------------------------------

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 some may think that LOTR doesn't 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.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: amyrlis ]

[Aragost]

If Tolkien was sexist then he wouldn't have made half of the Valar feamales of give Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn, or Luthien such big roles. People who come to that conclusion are just mad because there were no women in the fellowship.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I think the examples listed by Amyrlis lay that issue to rest beyond a doubt. I don't understand how someone who can actually read could say JRRT was sexist. I think perhaps some of the female charcters suffer because characterization is pretty thin in JRRT's writing, a result of his style (remote, fairy tale/legend) not his views on women. The male characters suffer in exactly the same way.

[TolkienGurl]

Maybe things that women say are sexist aren't! Back in Tolkien's time, women were not as aggressive as they are now. Aggressive is good, I suppose, to a certain extent. It says in the Bible that men and women are NOT supposed to equal. It doesn't make sense, otherwise. In a family, there has to be a leader, and one who carries out the raising of the children. Now, that doesn't mean we women are supposed to break our backs as servants, or anything, but men are naturally leaders, and women are followers - in a good way!!! There are plenty of Eowyns and Arwens and Luthiens out there, and I'm proud to say that I'm one of them. Please don't take anything I have said in offense. I don't want to take this thread off topic and cause Estelyn to close it, so I don't want to argue about this (well, if you have any off topic complaints about what I have said, PM me.) [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Rumil]

Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ,

Do you think that Tolkien encountered many liberated or strong women during his formative years? Mrs Tolkien doesn't seem to have been the pushy type - does anyone know if she ever wrote or said anything about her husband's work?
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Additionally, at the time Oxford was definitely a male dominated society. A friend who read for his doctorate there told me that the 'Unseen University' scenes from Terry Pratchett portray the place uncannily well.

Universities are of course, directly descended from medieval theological colleges - nuff said! Isn't it to Tolkien's credit that he even included any female characters?

[Kalimac]

OK, Rumil, I will rise to the bait [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. (My knowledge of Tolkien's life is rather sketchy but I'll try).

Tolkien's father died when he was very young and his mother raised him and his brother alone until she died as well, which event I *believe* happened when Tolkien was 8 or so (might be off a few years on this). He was then given to the guardianship of a priest and brought up in fairly masculine society. However, his mother must have had a strong influence on him - she had become (against the wishes of her family) Roman Catholic, and when her husband died and she was left without much, her family wouldn't have anything to do with her, since she had gone over to (gasp!) the Scarlet Woman. They probably would have helped her out if she had un-converted, so to speak, but she was very proud and wouldn't do it; in fact, by bringing her sons up Catholic and giving their care to a priest, rather than her family, when she died, she was actually pretty defiant. Shades of Galadriel defying her family, perhaps?

As for Edith - I've never seen much to indicate that she had a particularly aggressive personality, but she did do several strong things, including having a romance with Tolkien until it was expressly forbidden (and even then they corresponded - since only meeting had been expressly forbidden, not *writing* - until Tolkien's guardian twigged to that one and forbade writing as well). When Tolkien turned 21 and sought her out, she was engaged to someone else, but promptly broke her engagement to marry him; this couldn't have thrilled her family too much. Tolkien himself saw a parallel with Luthien Tinuviel in Edith, and I'd guess it was largely because she and Tolkien sought each other out, and because they married despite the fact that neither was the other family's approved choice.

So yes, the academic society that he moved in was fairly masculine, but it seems that both his mother and his wife were capable of some fairly stubborn/heroic actions. Maybe this is why there are so few women in LOTR, but they inevitably are magnificent when they do appear?

Just my $0.02.

[Rumil]

Nice reply Kalimac!
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
It had always mystified me that Tolkien considered himself and Edith as Beren and Luthien. Now it makes far more sense! I suppose the story of Aragorn and Arwen was similarly inspired.

It must have been rather strange to be brought up by a priest. Did Tolkien like annd respect the priest? Precursor of Gandalf if so ???

[Helkasir]

I never thought of it as sexist; but I don't know how well Tolkien knew women in general. Most of the women, other than Eowyn and Galadriel, were one dimensional. I mean, Luthien had very little say even with all that she did in middle earth.

[Lush]

Gurl, I think you're enamoured with a golden age that didn't exist. In every time and every age, there exist the meek women and the trouble-making sort. Come to think of it, the very presence of women is usually trouble. Personally, I milk that for what it's worth. In terms of Tolkien, he was writing a fairy tale, not a complex character study of either gender. He wasn't concerned with female behaviour as a whole, but with the nonexistent prototype of the Lady, because it suited his style. Furthermore, I think that anyone who thinks that the image of women is more aggressive now than they were "then" should study up on some Medieval literature. Report to me after you're done blushing.

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[TolkienGurl]

I am not going to argue with you but I am going to say, blushing Puritan that I am, that I don't agree with some of the things you said.

1. I never said there was a "golden age", nor will I ever say that, because there has never been one and there never will be one.

2. What I meant by Agressive women: to begin a quarrel or controversy. That is true more so today then in the past. That's just the way it is.

3. Yes, I realize that women in Tolkien's time, and before, were not perfect, nor did I say they were. They (generally) were not as publicly aggressive as women are today, and had the same faults as us.

[Kalimac]

Rumil - I believe he did (respect the priest, that is - eesh, I wish I could remember his name). They had a major falling-out over whether Tolkien should be courting Edith, obviously, but Tolkien seems to have remained respectful of him and later wrote to one of his sons that he believed that he himself had also not been without fault, and while he thought his guardian had been wrong to forbid the relationship, looking at it from the guardian's perspective he could see why he might have had reservations (after all, how many 17 year old guys in love really HAVE found the true love of their life? Not a high percentage). So I'd say that we could be looking at a Gandalf-prototype, albeit a more "The Hobbit" style Gandalf than "LOTR".

Lush - couldn't agree more [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Tolkien's females are very medieval in their way (shades of courtly love) and even Eowyn has a strong whiff of an adventurous Joan of Arc about her (except for the ending, of course). But this doesn't mean that these were the ONLY kind of women around in medieval times - as in all eras, they managed to start as many quarrels as women do now, regardless of whatever society's official strictures may have been (I mean, look at our society now. We do have some official standards, but how many people actually follow them rigidly?).

For literary characters, look at the women in Canterbury Tales (the wife of Bath, the Miller's wife - no shrinking violets they), also the women in "Roman de la Rose" - and remember that this is the era that first gave us the term "fishwife." For real people - Lucrezia Borgia, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Joan of Arc, Isabeau of France (Charles VII's mother who did her best to get him declared illegitimate and disinherited, there's motherly affection for you) Queen Isabelle who married Edward II and then killed him when he showed more of a taste for boys than for her, Margery Kempe the village-woman who ditched her husband and ten children and jaunted off to Palestine and wrote (or dictated) a book about it later, Empress Matilda who fought King Stephen for the English throne upwards of 15 years or so, etc etc. I realize most of these women were nobility or at least better-educated than most, but those were the people who tended to write and have their deeds recorded - it's hard to believe that noblewomen were somehow fundamentally different in their characters from the commoners; just that instead of having their tantrums and picking quarrels between families, they were doing it between kingdoms.

ANYWAY to tie this all in to the topic (I'm sorry about the ramble, Estelyn [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] ) Tolkien obviously had a great appreciation for the noble, above-all-this, strong but self-effacing woman who appears in the stories of courtly love; and he may well have seen parallels between their silent, enduring strength and pride and the sort of strength and pride he saw in his wife and his mother. Just because he appreciated and wrote about this kind of woman, though, doesn' necessarily mean he thought this was the way women SHOULD be (though of course I'd pick an Eowyn over a Lucrezia Borgia any day, but who wouldn't) simply that that was how the women in the story - whose creation would inevitably be at least slightly influenced by the real women he knew - appeared to him. Judging a writer's views a particular sex simply by their stories is very tricky, no matter which way they seem to lean on the question. I might write a story where the only female characters are cold and bossy, but does this mean that I only know cold and bossy women, or that I think this is the way all women should be? Not necessarily. It very likely means that I've encountered a woman or women like that who have influenced me very strongly (for good or ill) and that influence is one of the things that makes me think subconsciously the way I do, which is why the story turned out the particular way it did. It's not that I choose consciously to elevate or put down that type of woman, just that all the influences of my life have combined and that particular influence has created those particular characters.

OK, I hope that made some sort of sense. Thanks for reading my 2.5 cents, everyone [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

[Nieninque]

I doubt women are any more "aggressive" today than they've ever been. We just have more freedoms and are able to express ourselves more due to laws made in recent years. I also don't agree with the Bible's take on men being the leaders and women being followers. There are countless spineless men who can't lead sheep let alone other people, and countless women who are strong and competant leaders.
Concerning Tolkien, he could have included a woman in the Fellowship (just to make it interesting), but I don't feel he made it all-male out of sexism. They just happened to be men. Besides, I doubt anyone would have liked a female Gimli ^.~

[TolkienGurl]

Ok, this is what I believe. In a family there is a husband (male) and a wife (female). The way God designed men was to be the "breadwinners", and women to stay home and raise the children and care for the house. by leader I don't mean the the husband makes all the decisions and is a cruel tyrant who subjects his wife to slavery and doing his every whim. Now I realize that this is not a prominent view today, and it is merely what I believe.

In any organization, there is a leader, and there must be one lower than the leader, or else nothing will get accomplished. if there were multiple leaders, the one leader will say "This is what is best" and the other leader "No, This is what is best." Concerning family, is that a good environment in which to raise children? Don't you think that if men and women were made to be equal, there wouldn't be 2 genders?

Equal: One not inferior or superior to another
How does that make sense??? Male and female are 2 different genders!! How can a family function if the 2 are equal?

Of course, by leader I mean "head of the house". Just because women were not designed to be equal with men doesn't mean we are more or less important! Of course we are!

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[InklingElf]

Ok, this is what I believe. In a family there is a husband (male) and a wife (female). The way God designed men was to be the "breadwinners", and women to stay home and raise the children and care for the house. by leader I don't mean the the husband makes all the decisions and is a cruel tyrant who subjects his wife to slavery and doing his every whim. Now I realize that this is not a prominent view today, and it is merely what I believe

-I agree

[TolkienGurl]

Thank you so very much! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[InklingElf]

-TolkienGurl-No problemo!

[Lush]

Yeah, I really don't know how a few of the posts above can be related to Tolkien at all. Frankly, it appears this thread is headed for a shut-down, and we haven't even crossed over into gay-bashing yet! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Ok, ok, all kidding aside, Gurl, I hope you're not offended by my statements. I'm not branding you a blushing Puritan (I blush all the time myself), I just think that you tend to idealize certain aspects of the male-female dynamic.

As for the importance of the husband being the leader of the household, I personally think it is important for him to think and feel that he is the leader. In reality, most smart women are manipulative creatures, so when the husband thinks he's getting his way...Well, you get the idea.

I think Tolkien understood this aspect of the female personality, but it wasn't in his interests to play it up in the story. The importance of family is present in its archetypal, mythical form, but as for actually goes on in a marriage...This wasn't one of Tolkien's literary concerns. Frankly, I like it that way. If I want to read about the stark reality of it all, Erica Jong, Chaucer, and Tolstoy are at arm's reach.

[TolkienGurl]

I honestly do not consider myself an idealist, nor do I want to be called one, but if that is what is illustrates by my posts then so be it! [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] I did not mean to seem rude, or overbearing. I always get too riled up over things that don't really matter! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] Oh, well.

The whole "blushing Puritan" thing was all out of the heat of the moment, so to speak. I apologize.

None of the things debated in this thread really had anything to do with Tolkien. Eh. Whatever. That's what happens when you get a bunch of intellectuals together! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Thulorongil]

As long as the debate is not useless, oh well.

The only people who really think that Tolkien was sexist are the ones that have only seen the movie, not paid attention to the details of the female characters, not read past the LotR trilogy, or just enjoy causing arguments. If someone is truly knowledgeable in Tolkien literature, they do not complain about lack of female characters/power/importance.

Who really knows why there were no women in the Fellowship? Perhaps Tolkien just liked those characters as men. Perhaps only men in Middle Earth have coincidental visions telling them to go to Imladris. Perhaps Elrond didn't like women so he didn't summon them. Perhaps Tolkien needed extensively strong supporting characters. Perhaps I should stop and let other people share their ideas.

[Elenna]

Wait, I'm confused. Since when are men designed to be the breadwinners? It seems to me that in Tolkien's works, he emphasized that women weren't as strong as men physically, but in the cases of Luthien and Galadriel, could be far more powerful in other ways.

And, as an "agressive woman" myself, I think I am just as well designed to win bread as any man. Sure, I'm rather small, but I am just as strong mentally and physically as many men.

[TolkienGurl]

I wasn't trying to insult anyone. In this day and age it is not possible for men to be the only breadwinners of the family. I was just saying that that is how it was designed to be.

[Arwen1858]

Proverbs 31 talks about the woman making fine linens and selling them, so it's not like women can't do anything. Just the father/husband should be the main supporter. Without someone to cook, clean, and make or buy clothes, where would the family be? That is what I believe the mother's role is. I would also like to note that I agree with TolkienGurl, and respect her opinions.
Arwen

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Please try to keep this topic related to Tolkien and his works; a general exchange of opinions on feminist issues is not the purpose of this forum.

[Cúdae]

To try and bring this back to the original topic...
I have found, in my eyes anyway, proof that by no means was Tolkien sexist towards women in his writings. My proof is Haleth, leader of the Haladin from the Silmarillion. Not only was she a woman who fought by the side of her brother and father (and saw both killed) but she also led her people through dangerous lands, rejected the help Caranthir offered to her, and gave a new name to her people: The People of Haleth. If you ask me, no more proof is needed that Tolkien had nothing against women.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Most of you have read the Dreaded Sexism Thread, but I suggest that those who haven't do. It was even quite interesting for a while.

[Nieninque]

Wow, I didn't mean to get you all up in a bunch ^^ Um, to get (somewhat) back to the topic, do you think that Peter Jackson threw the Arwen-chase thing in b/c he thought she didn't have a big enough part in the book?

[Cúdae]

Yes, I think Peter Jackson had Arwen take over Glorfindel's role and them some because he thought she didn't have a large enough role. Also, there aren't that many female roles in the Lord of the Rings. Sure you have Galadriel, but she comes across as untouchable. Then there is Eowyn, who is undoubtedly a wonderful character, but she's just one. Besides, Peter Jackson had to take in the fact that people who had not read the books were indeed going to see the movie--and that they might expect a strong female character. Peter Jackson had a tough choice there. Should he stay true to Tolkien or bring up Arwen and therefore have women play a larger role? Another point on that, he had to bring the love of Aragorn and Arwen into it or many people who do not like action/adventure movies would have been turned away immediately. So there's my answer, yes, Peter Jackson brought her up because not only did he feel that she did not have a large enough role but also that women did not have a large enough role.

[Arwen1858]

Probably another reason Arwen took Glorfindel's place at the ford was to cut down on the confusion. The more small characters you have, the more confusing. It was hard enough to put what they did into 3 hours! More small characters would mean more for people to keep up with, and for those who haven't read the books, that would be more confusion.
Arwen

[Cúdae]

Speaking of Arwen... In the books she seems to play a major-ish role (she marries Aragorn, need I say more?), but she is mentioned very little. My first impression when reading the books is that Tolkien brought her up a bit without too much to support that. Suddenly towards the end, you are hearing a lot more of Arwen than ever and if you aren't familiar with Middle-Earth this can be a bit bewildering.