Females in the Fellowship

[Lalaith]

I dont think any other elven woman went on dangerous quest or journeys with exceptions of going to help or be with people they love, or so they wouldnt die.

Eleven maiden Earwen, I would point you to Galadriel, who embarked on the highly perilous journery from Valinor with the sons of Feanor because she wanted to rule over a kingdom of her own. And to Aredhel, who left her brother's safe kingdom of Gondolin purely because she felt enclosed and wanted to ride free in the forests.

[elven maiden Earwen]

ok so that might happen but I dont nthink they woulg go on a perolis journey that they would most likely die on to distroy a magical ring if there were plenty of men that could go.
but then again.. maybe they would

[Lush]

I'm a little alarmed by all this female passivity I'm seeing on this thread.

*Lush snaps her teeth at being lumped with the "passive" crowd.*

but don't you think that in those times, most women would be reluctant to go on a journey? Perhaps with other women yes, but with nine men? I don't think so.

I am not criticising the LOTR, but your logic, I believe, is questionable: some women prefer the company of men.

Quests typically take more than one month, and everyone knows what comes once a month. Try having that and trampling through the wilderness with nine men. No thank you!

Female athletes manage to compete in the Olympics, no matter what time of the month it is, to give an example. Women are tougher than you think, why do you think that we are the ones who carry and give birth to children?

Not that Tolkien would give a hoot about any of this, of course.

[LeGoLaSz gUrL]

it would have been interesting if there was a female charater in the trilogy, but then it again, it would have altered the story. it could have led to a love relationship sort of thing with one of the males in the fellowship, and there are enough love stories i think. in my opinion, it just seems weird to have a girl part of the fellowship. the story is fine how it is.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

Maybe I've come across in the wrong way - I'm not trying to put down women. I'm a female, myself! And I love stories with strong female characters. I'm an aspiring writer, and I'm writing a story with a strong female lead, so obviously I have no problem with it. I was just commenting on how in LotR, with the exception of Eowyn perhaps, I don't get the impression that there were a lot of willing, adventurous women. There were a few that were, and that's what made them remarkable. Maybe at the time of LotR, Tolkien felt he could not write real enough female characters, and so decided to not put any females in too much spotlite. For whatever reason there aren't any females in the Fellowship, I am fine with it. I like the Fellowship as it is, and I try to see past the gender as someone here has said. I usually don't think, 'Oh, can't relate to them. There a guy!' Because I see the Fellowship as people, characters with a personality behind them. I don't dismiss them as a bunch of 'guys'. The same way as the first female character that appears, I don't latch onto and say 'If I were in Middle Earth, that would be me.' just because they are female. I try not to take gender into account. I am really happy with LotR. I loved Eowyn (and if anything, I wish she could have come sooner) as the strong female character. I think she would have been willing, and a good member of the Fellowship, but it would have altered the story too much, and as I love LotR how it is, I'm not for that. Tolkien wrote what he wrote for a reason, whether logical or personal, and because he is the writer I don't think anyone can argue with him. I just feel like maybe I've given a lot of you the wrong impression about me. I usually take the feminist side of arguments, and I realize that some of the things I have said may seem like I'm putting down women. I did not mean to sound that way. Also, when I said these things about a woman not wanting to go on a quest, monthly thing, it's not neccisarily my thoughts. I overlook that when I write, I'm just saying those MAY have been some things that Tolkien thought about. Who knows. All I know is I love LotR as it is, and I'm not degrating women. I am perfectly aware that they could have made the journey!!

[Frodo Baggins]

Forget not, dear people, the Arthurian legends (which LOTR resembles in a few places). In the tales of the good king Arthur, the men are always the ones running around fighting, going on quests and shedding blood. The women, on the other hand, (except for Morgan Le Fay and her cohorts) are seen as goddes-like fair beauties. They are the ones that stay home but will support their men. They are the reason their men fight, the men fight for their ladies. Idealized? Yes, but that's the beauty of it, the ladies are protrayed as noble and fair and rare jewels that are to bre treasured.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Frodo,

I think there is another issue which is pertinent to this question when you compare the women present in LotR with those who appear in the Arthurian corpus. And I think that issue does have at least indirect relevence to the question that's been raised in this thread.

First, my general feelings on this question......I think Tolkien's depiction of the fellowship, and its close bonds (with the exception of Boromir), stem from his own perceptions of male friendship which grew out of his experience at Oxford. Whether we like it or not, women were not in plentiful numbers at the University when Tolkien was a professor there. This is an historical reality. The ethos of Oxford, and more importantly JRRT's own experience with the Inklings, rose from very male roots.

Yes, I know JRRT acted as a tutor for one of the few women's colleges because he was a "safe" married man, but this is definitely the exception rather than the norm.

In my mind's eye, both JRRT's portrayal of the bonds of the fellowship, and the friendship between Sam and Frodo, are actually a reflection of the kind of male bonding that one finds in the Inklings. I truly think that the interaction of the men in the Inklings had a great influence on his depiction of male relations in the fellowship. Because I feel and sense that whole backdrop of male bonding, a woman would not fit into the fellowship per se, at least not for me.

I do wish that Tolkien would have included stronger female characters, particularly human women (as opposed to Elves or Ainur) at other points in the book. And I wonder if he might have done it, if he'd written LotR later in his life. His portrayal of Andreth certainly shows that he could have.

But what about the Arthurian issue wich you raise? Was this Tolkien's model? To me, there is one huge difference between how women are portrayed in the Arthurian corpus and how Tolkien depicted them. This has been discussed many times before--the fact that it is very rare for women to be depicted as evil, or even as perpetrators of evil in LotR. The same is not true of the Arthurian legends. Figures like Morgause, Morgan le Fey, and Iseult are far more "corrupted" than any of Tolkien's women. This is true even of the figure of Guinevere. While she is not "evil" per se, it is her presence that brings about the love triangle and eventually leads to the downfall of Camelot.

JRRT did not portray women in this light. Perhaps, it was his position as a Catholic, his devotion to Mary, that pushed him to develop a far more idealized picture. Perhaps it was his love for his own wife. But, for whatever reason, Tolkien rejected the often negative slant on women that's given in the Arthurian corpus where women often appear as the deceivers and tempters of men. (We also know he had ambivalent feeling about the legends as a while, since he speaks of this in the Letters.)

So I don't think he consciously looked to the Arthurian legends as a model for women. His depictions of women in many respects deliberately rejected what he'd found in the Arthurian legends. I think if we want to look for influences on Tolkien and how he depicted women, we have to study the historical climate he grew up in, his views as a Catholic, and perhaps just as importantly, the body of Norse legend.

sharon

[ March 21, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

I completly agree. A female in th fellowship wouldn't work, it would have to bring sex int he fellowship, and that would be absurd. the women that are present are beautiful, admirable women, and thats exactly as it should be.

[Princess_Fairy]

I be of the same mind! I am a female my self and having more females in the fellowship would ruin it! The females that they do have in the film played a influential part and they did it well. But being in the fellowship is not a thing I see girls doing! I think if there would be more females the movie it wouldn’t be that nice! So I agree!

[Lush]

A female in th fellowship wouldn't work, it would have to bring sex int he fellowship

I agree that a female in the fellowship was less than appropriate, but what is it with this logic behind your statement? A female character in the company of male characters is automatically supposed to sleep with one (or more) of them? Tut tut.

[Kalimac]

Lush - people tend to assume the worst when it's one girl and bunch of guys out on their own for weeks at a time, don't they? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Though frankly, even if there HAD been a female human/Elf in the fellowship, it's hard to picture anything happening; for one thing, they'd all be too tired, and for another thing, nothing kills romance like (a) complete lack of privacy, (b) the constant risk of getting pulled awake at 2 AM to flee something and (c) being a good adventurer, you'd have to keep a weapon at hand at every moment. Eh, maybe not.

That being said, no, I don't "miss" having females in the Fellowship; if JRRT had written it with a woman or two, I wouldn't have objected, but as it is it never bothered me. To be honest, when I was first reading the books (I was ten) I identified much more with the hobbits than with anyone else, albeit they were all male and at least twenty years older than me. That didn't matter; what mattered was that their world was closest to mine and theirs were the eyes I was seeing things through. I saw Galadriel and Arwen as distant, impressive creatures, and Eowyn was only marginally less so, given that she was trained to fight and bear arms and ride horses and so forth, whereas I was much more Pippin-like in the sense at not being much of an expert at much except breaking things. The fact that Eowyn et al were female really didn't register with me as something to identify with; I may have been too young.

Also, I'd like to second what Child said about Tolkien's background; I don't think that's the sole reason that he may have had difficult writing about three-dimensional women, but being raised almost in an almost exclusively male environment like that (especially with having the vague memory of a beloved mother to idealize) couldn't really have helped. Like Jack London, writing about women just wasn't his forte - the same way that writing about legendary creatures and philologies just isn't Michael Cunningham's thing. I wouldn't call it a weakness, more of an absence - plenty of male writers can write convincingly about women, after all, but very few can create worlds like ME.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Interesting discussion! It seems inevitable that I must, at an hour much too late for sanity, find a chord struck that I must answer. Actually, it was a letter of Tolkien's to his son Michael (#43-6-8 March 1941) that provided the striking surface. The letter is quite long and covers the relationship between men and women, and one passage seems to speak (to me, anyway) to the complications inherent in inserting a female into the solid male Fellowship:

In this fallen world the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human being, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This 'friendship' has been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails.

The letter goes on to elaborate on this and other points, but the idea I get from it is that Tolkien felt the relationship between man and woman to be of a character that cannot exclude sex and/or romantic love (excepting perhaps between a man and woman who have passed the age of their sexual prime). I imagine such an inclusion in the fellowship would have distracted from the major points he wished to stress, and also may have diffused the storyline and detracted from the powerful themes present and beautifully illustrated in the storyline as it is.

That's my idea, anyway. I believe also that Tolkien's understanding of women must issue from the point of view of a man surrounded by men, as was said earlier in this thread. The depiction of Eowyn and her transformation as she resided in the Halls of Healing demonstrates a surface understanding but not a line of reasoning or emotional verity with respect to this female character. Eowyn's epiphany is convenient, and it is obvious she feels strongly, but there is no light to guide us through her thoughts at that point as there is for the males in the story. I can understand Eowyn forsaking arms for healing, and there are valid reasons for doing so, but her motivations (and her revelations) are not explored, only the sudden light that comes upon her. To a casual observer, it might look as if Tolkien has opted for the cop-out, presenting her as a stereotype of a woman who can behave as a man, but who is tamed by a man in the end and thus having been set to rights, takes up her pre-ordained role in the home and as wife. I have a feeling he could only follow her so far...

These are just a few of my thoughts...thanks for the interesting thread!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Lush]

Good post, Lyta.

I have seen this Tolkien quote on friendship come up before, and I think it serves as a good (albeit partial) illustration of his reasoning, especially in light of the fact that the LOTR was not to exceed its standard "quota" of romance.

I disagree with good JRR entirely on his position, of course, but that's another story, and doesn't affect my reading of the book.

[Lalaith]

Firstly, I have to admit that I am quite in despair by some of the (I am assuming) young women posting in this thread who, in the year 2003, are quite unable to see their own gender portraying any other literary function than love/sex object.
Girls! Lift your imaginations above Hollywood and the more mawkish kind of fanfiction.
I have already given you a wise dwarfwoman. What about, instead of Gandalf, we have Melian, the powerful Maia, returned to Middle Earth on one last mission? Now, don't tell me *she's* going end up messing up the quest by having her period and crying and getting a crush on Legolas...
[img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]
But seriously.
Child of the 7th Age, I love your Arthurian legends analysis. I would add that the Arthurian canon is one that has evolved over some 1500 years, during which women were portrayed in all kinds of ways...but the popular Arthurian image is I think the one most closely associated with Malory's Morte d'Arthur and the French romances. That is, middle/late mediaeval. Tolkien's own period of speciality, and the period he I think most identified with, was considerably earlier, (what some term the 'heroic' period) and I agree, he wasn't overly fond of the late mediaeval mindset in general.
I also think it is interesting that many of Tolkien's most complex and (in terms of modern thinking) most 'right-on' heroines were in his writings not intended for publication. The characters in LotR were, to some extent, driven by commercial considerations and what was considered 'proper' at the time.
Judging by the writing in the Silmarillion etc, his own personal views of women were, for a man of his era and circumstance, remarkably progressive.
Oh, and with regard to male/female platonic relations, what of Aredhel, sister of Turgon, and her friendship with the sons of Feanor?

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I posted on this thread a bit ago, but the discussion has come so far I wanted to put in another small bit.

A lot of people have mentioned Eowyn and her courage and strength and so on. And partially, I agree (she is one of my favorite characters in LOTR after all...) but I think we forget that Eowyn's determination and such were inspired by her despair. She went to the battle, not so much to do great things, but to do great things and die while doing them. She saw nothing ahead of her but "female passivity" and was willing to do pretty much anything to escape from it. she was defeated in every area, denied Aragorn's love, forced to wait on the men, kept inside basically. Realistically, I think she was a little unbalanced.

When she does "come around" in the end we accuse her of accepting her male dominated role? True Tolkien didn't look too deeply into her thoughts, but I think something can be taken from the fact that she turns from war when she's no longer despairing. I can't however, imagine Eowyn sitting inside doing cross stitch. Let's not be so bloodthirsty as to assume that the only place for an independant female is out hacking up orcs. When she found a little appreciation (Faramir) Eowyn was free to pursue something other than virtual suicide.

And as a sidenote, if we're looking for flawed female characters, Galadriel's past wasn't spotless.

[Durelin]

YOU ROCK! Ruler of the Frogs. As a girl, I am the same way. I wish people would stop complaining. Why does it matter? It's reality, men are the warriors. Face it!

Sorry, anyway, well, I am glad too that there were few women in LOTR and especially no female members of the fellowship. They'd try giving Sauron the silent treatment! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] J.K.!

The thing is, women bring life into the world (I'm not getting into sex-ed) and therefore are very important. Men have always taken up the role of protecting the "life-bearers" and have always been more qualified for that. Women need to calm down in their 'women's rights' stuff. There going to get what they want in the U.S. If there is a draft at some point in time (I'm not saying that's likely) than I have heard that there will immediately be a lawsuit for equal rights to include women in the draft. Man, that will be wierd. Women aren't made for that, it's plain fact. And what is so wrong with that? It's life. If you want it in a religious viewpoint, God made women that way, and men the other. Okay?

[ March 22, 2003: Message edited by: Durelin ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Firstly, thanks for the compliment on my post, Lush! :=) I always try to say something thoughtful when I post! I'd say that probably it was Tolkien himself who couldn't conceive of male-female friendship in the same sense as male-male friendship, simply as a result of the social situation in which he lived and thought. I do not have the advantage of having read the histories, other than LOTR and the Hobbit (the Silmarillion was so long ago and an abortive attempt then that I cannot claim to have read it), but I could see, even in his letter quoted previously, he denoted some exceptions.

She saw nothing ahead of her but "female passivity" and was willing to do pretty much anything to escape from it. she was defeated in every area, denied Aragorn's love, forced to wait on the men, kept inside basically. Realistically, I think she was a little unbalanced.

When she does "come around" in the end we accuse her of accepting her male dominated role? True Tolkien didn't look too deeply into her thoughts, but I think something can be taken from the fact that she turns from war when she's no longer despairing.

Sophia, I do agree that Eowyn is unbalanced, but so are her times. She seems to echo the state of her realm. I do not believe she is copping out when she turns to healing rather than fighting. I understand she has had an epiphany and the darkness is gone within her; anything that extracts that unhealthiness from her is a good thing. I do not believe that it necessarily is a one-to-one equivalency with laying down arms. This was simply an individual choice of Eowyn's. When the desire to fight is motivated by the desire for death, certainly it is not a proper warrior instinct, but a symptom of despair, much like what happened to Denethor. So I agree with what you say to a point. It seems to be a logical progression for Eowyn's character, rather than a cop-out. But superficially it would look like one (to someone who did not divine the sickness in Eowyn's soul).

If there is a draft at some point in time (I'm not saying that's likely) than I have heard that there will immediately be a lawsuit for equal rights to include women in the draft. Man, that will be wierd. Women aren't made for that, it's plain fact. And what is so wrong with that? It's life. If you want it in a religious viewpoint, God made women that way, and men the other. Okay?

Durelin, I must disagree with the absolute nature of your statement. Women are certainly made for childbearing and rearing, but they are also quite capable of practicing the warrior arts. One part of this concept that many do not get is that men would treat women differently on the battlefield, when, in fact, in cultures that welcome women as full warriors, these women reliquish their status as traditional 'nurturing women' when they take up arms and become targets and threats, the same as men. If a women chooses the way of the warrior, she accepts this danger, not, in Eowyn's case, as a death-wish, but as a natural consequence of being a defender.

The interesting thing about women is that they have a choice--to be defenders or nurturers. If they choose the nurturing path, then it is folly to leave their charges to defend others; it is a denial of their chosen responsibility.

The thing I am still considering is what choice did Eowyn have? She was pressed into the role of keeping the people of Rohan by her birth and position at the time of conflict. Her desire for a warrior's life and for death is a desire to break away from a role she has had no say in, a rebellion, rather than a life choice. Interesting character she is!

Cheers,
Lyta

[elven maiden Earwen]

What about, instead of Gandalf, we have Melian, the powerful Maia, returned to Middle Earth on one last mission? Now, don't tell me *she's* going end up messing up the quest by having her period and crying and getting a crush on Legolas...

I dont think that would happen. What most of us are saying is that it wouldnt work for womanor maybe elven woman to be in the fellowship.they would cause magor conflict.Ya you could have a dwarf or a maiar but do you think that a elven maiden, woman,or hobbit woman would make a good campanion??

[Aratlithiel]

Firstly, I have to admit that I am quite in despair by some of the (I am assuming) young women posting in this thread who, in the year 2003, are quite unable to see their own gender portraying any other literary function than love/sex object.

Lalaith - I don't necessarily think that these young women (myself included sans the 'young' part - 'young-ish' maybe?) feel that a woman in the fellowship could have served no other purpose, but that Tolkien himself, whether because of his own history or the times in which he wrote, would have been unable to write it otherwise. As wonderful an author as the man was - and no one could possibly revere him more than I - I don't believe he would have been capable of writing an effective female character as a member of the fellowship without the story itself suffering.

Doug and I discussed on another thread not long ago how every plot-point - however miniscule - was necessary to the story as a whole...remove one single point and the story falls down like so many dominoes. (ex.: Bilbo doesn't give Sting [a sword made expressly for the elves to fend off giant spiders in Mirkwood] to Frodo so Sam can't wield it against Shelob therefore using "the Spider's Bane" against the ultimate spider. I don't think the barrow blade would have been quite so effective, hmmm?)

By the same token, if you add or subract any single attribute or character-flaw from any member of the fellowship, it would necessarily affect plot and, therefore story. Imagine what the addition of another member - male OR female - would have done? I can hear the dominoes tumbling now. And what a tragedy that would be!

Might a female in the fellowship have worked? Possibly. But would it then be OUR Lord of the Rings? Absolutely not.

And for those of you women who are disappointed in those of us who prefer it the way it is, sans females, I'm terribly sorry but I'm quite willing to forfeit my 'PC-ness' to maintain this work the way it was originally presented. I personally don't need a strong female character in every tale I read - I know strong females exist (and like to think myself one of them) and therefore do not need every author to include one in order to feel validated. I think it's more a measure of strength to appreciate a literary work on its own merit without needing an author to give you someone to identify with and thus tell you how strong you are. That's what Mary Sue fan fiction is for.

I can't help but feel the same pressure here as I have encountered in my life with the career vs. family issue. If I stay home with my family, I'm spitting in the face of the ERA and striking a blow against all womankind. If I focus on my career and drive for success I'm neglecting my family and imperiling the future of America with my wild offspring. By the same token the discussion here seems to veer off every now and then to, 'if you don't think a female in the fellowship would have worked, you're betraying womankind.' Nonsense.

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Aratlithiel ]

[Nurumaiel]

I found this discussion very interesting, and I felt as though I had to put my own views in. My mother and I discussed this for a long while, and came up with some interesting points.

One of the first things that came to my mind when I thought of a fellowship of men and women was Han Solo and Princess Leia. Eilonwy and Taran. I do not believe that Tolkien would write like this, but I do believe I would have set the book down, fearing it would be another story of a company of men and women who fall in love with each other.

I myself am a female (see the -iel at the end of my name), and I do not see a place for a woman in the Fellowship. No, I cannot see a female Istari battling the Balrog, the Return of the Queen, and so forth. If you change Boromir to, say, Boromira, than you have a lot of people thinking that Tolkien's view was that women were evil, because of what Boromir did. I can't imagine them caring that he- she was sorry. And then my mother pointed out that you no longer have the whole Boromir-Denethor-Faramir story. Denethor saying how he wished Faramir had gone instead of Boromira. Denethor favoring his strong and brave daughter over his son. It wouldn't work.

I have to disagree that woman wouldn't be strong enough for this Quest. Why wouldn't they be? If they were, then why would Éowyn face the Nazgûl Lord? Read p. 822 - 824 of RotK and you will see what a woman did. And Éowyn is not just an exception.

Yet still I do not think the Quest was as much a challenge of physical strength than of a challenge of courage and strength of heart. The Fellowship would have failed if it had not been for their courage and determination. I do believe that a woman could be in this fellowship and do all right.

But there was no place for a woman. This part of the story did not call for a woman, and that's what mattered. The Witch King could not defeated by man, so, therefore, a woman had to destroy him. But the Fellowship could survive without a woman, and they did.

On a closing note, I think the Fellowship was good just the way they were, and I wouldn't want a woman to come spoil that wonderful male - male comradeship they had while it all lasted.

[Lush]

Sophia, I do agree that Eowyn is unbalanced, but so are her times. She seems to echo the state of her realm.

Lyta, I think you've about hit the nail on the head in regards to Eowyn's emotional state. If Theoden wasn't lulled into near-madness by the arts of Saruman, Eowyn would not have been stuck playing a dry-nurse; if Grima was denied his influence in Theoden's land, Eowyn probably would not have been in the state of despair that she was by the time she met Aragorn. From then on, things progressed rather quickly. I think if Eowyn was not wounded in battle, she was likely to have gone ahead with Aragorn's army to the Black Gate (though then she wouldn't have had the time to be wooed by Faramir! Ah!), whether she was wanted or not (she was a stubborn girl). Unbalanced? You bet she was. But that doesn't negate the validity of her impact on the story, or her character traits.

And for those of you women who are disappointed in those of us who prefer it the way it is, sans females, I'm terribly sorry but I'm quite willing to forfeit my 'PC-ness' to maintain this work the way it was originally presented. I personally don't need a strong female character in every tale I read - I know strong females exist (and like to think myself one of them) and therefore do not need every author to include one in order to feel validated. I think it's more a measure of strength to appreciate a literary work on its own merit without needing an author to give you someone to identify with and thus tell you how strong you are. That's what Mary Sue fan fiction is for.

Ara, your complaint would be legitimate, if it wasn't for the fact that most of us on this thread are not arguing that the fact that there were no chicks in the Fellowship was "bad." I personally just disagree with some of the logic used to back up Tolkien's choice: statements akin to "that would have brought sex into the whole thing" are, well, sexist. If so many of Tolkien's characters are as noble and idealised as we say they are, I doubt he would have had a problem with making that seem believable, if only he could write a believable central female character in general. I don't recall myself, or anyone else posting that "because there were no females in the Fellowship, that was a bad thing." Au contraire. It was a good thing, but not because of some of the reasons being listed.

I can't help but feel the same pressure here as I have encountered in my life with the career vs. family issue. If I stay home with my family, I'm spitting in the face of the ERA and striking a blow against all womankind. If I focus on my career and drive for success I'm neglecting my family and imperiling the future of America with my wild offspring. By the same token the discussion here seems to veer off every now and then to, 'if you don't think a female in the fellowship would have worked, you're betraying womankind.' Nonsense.

I'm sorry that this thread has affected you on such a personal level, but it affects me too. That's part of being a woman in the modern world today: society sends us mixed messages. But there is nobody on this thread who has called anyone else a betrayer of womankind, this thread is rather more of a backlash against bad fan fiction coloured by a general distaste of the concept of the "f" word (feminism) and what it stands for (I apologize to Ruler I am misinterpreting or forgetting something here).

And what I think I, and a few other members are trying to say is that its ok to be annoyed with the excess of political correctness and "feminazism" as related to Tolkien's work, but the sweeping generalizations that are taking place in the logical progression of this thread are disagreeable to us.

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Tinuviel87]

In all honesty this thread should probably be closed.
But first of all, I of course have an opinion! [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]
Being a female with a strongly feministic point of view i still would not change one single thing about any of Tolkien's works. I don't feel like going into detail so to put in bluntly:
Can you honestly remeber the name of every male character in LotR without thinking for a few minutes?
Now try that with the females.
The female chracters stick out in your mind. Each one is unique has her own special place in the story. and Eowyn is there for the tomboy in all of us! Tolkien knew what he was doing. He was being realistic. Women in that period didn't do the things women do now. And Tolkien did want this to be his own little mythology of England in a sense. He k got it. Tolkien was too much of a perfectionist to not get this right.
We are all fans here...take a deep breath... and let it go [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
(so much for being blunt! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] )

[Lalaith]

Lush, you beat me to it. Lyta, your point about Eowyn is spot on.

But to those who have been complaining about PC (whatever that means - friendly fire, anyone?) I would like to emphasise the difference between "could" and "should".
*Should* a female (maia/dwarf/hobbit/elf/ human/whatever) have gone on the quest? I say, of course not. I have stated elsewhere in this thread that I like the book very much just as it is.
*Could* one have gone? I say yes. My suggested substitutions were made, however, in a light-hearted spirit.
And while we are talking about the difference between "could" and "should," this, for me, is what human rights (not just womens rights)are all about. They are not about dogma, about being forced to do things, but of having the chance to do them IF you want to.
Durelin, you say that you believe that God created men and women to be different. I believe that God created us ALL different. That was his genius. And some people have a fighting, questing spirit, some are happier by hearth and home. Some like to flit between the two. We all, men and women, have a right to choose where our spirits can best flourish.
Oh, and Aratlithiel, I take and respectyour point: it may well be that Tolkien could have had problems introducing a female. (Although even this point is worth debating, judging by the stronger female characters in his works not written for publication). But some posters seemed to be saying that they themselves could not envisage a literary female in a non-romantic function. That was what I was expressing dismay about...

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

[Lily Bracegirdle]

Lalaith, I love you.

It's true that the book would have been quite *different* if there had been a female in the fellowship, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it would have been *worse*. After all, the Professor would have written it and he would have paid the same amount of attention to detail as he did in the version we all know and love. He didn't put a female in the Fellowship, and that's fine. But if he had, I would have enjoyed it.

It's interesting that feminism has such a bad rap these days. I'll bet most if not all of you actually *are* feminists without knowing it.

Ask yourself this: "If a woman can do the same work as a man, should she be paid the same amount and be given the opportunity to do that work if she wants to?" If you answer "yes," you are a feminist. I'm not talking about being in combat or becoming a firefighter or anything like that, just any old white-collar job.

To bring this back on topic: the question boils down to "could a female do the same things as another member of the fellowship?" You don't need physical strength to do any of the things the hobbits did, just determination, so I'd say the answer is "yes." Lalaith has already covered the difference between "could" and "should" admirably, so I'll leave it at that.

-Lily

[Voralphion]

To the people that are saying that Eowyn would have made a good member of the fellowship, I have to disagree with you. While Eowyn was hardy and capable of wielding a sword, the only thing she sought was death in battle. Because of this she would have made a poor member of the fellowship because she wanted to die and possibly would have tried to do something heroic that in the end may have jepardised the others.
She only thought of her own glory not the overall goal of defeating Sauron.

[Durelin]

I know that woman are capable of being extremely talented in the arts of war, but men tend to be more so, bore often. Plain fact. I myself, like to dream of being a female warrior! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I just hate "Girl Power" t-shirts and junk. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I don't have to proove that I can beat men in things, it doesn't really matter. Both men and women (really boys and girls) are better at certain things than I am. To other girls and women, it does matter that they beat men, and sometimes a little too much.

[Lush]

She only thought of her own glory not the overall goal of defeating Sauron.

Surely you don't mean that. Eowyn's courage is inspired by her anger at what Rohan has become, her love of her uncle, her people, as well as desire for Aragorn and to be Queen. It's not one-dimensional.

[Durelin]

Part of Eowyn's riding out to war also had to do with her not having the will to live. She had gained a mental being like many male warriors that they can die, because there is no reason for them to live, as long as they die honorably and in glory. In other words, fighting to the death. She had that in her, she had a sadness, as did many of the Rohirrim, I believe at the point of the War of the Ring. Her sadness went beyond Aragorn not loving her and her not being able to fight. She had watched her uncle suffer, yet could do little about it, she had watched her people suffer, though she could do little about that also. Then there's her cousin dying, Eomer banished, the end of the world, so to speak, coming with Sauron's armies. It goes on and on. I believe most of us would feel suicidal, though many of us would realize, like Eowyn, that we must live through all. *bows* Thankyou. (I believe you already talked about her suicidal tendencies, but I had to put in my word. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img])

[Lobelia]

Personally, I think the only believable woman in the whole of LOTR was my namesake, Lobelia! ; - ) Well, maybe a few other hobbit women and the ladies of the Houses of Healing. Hobbit women, by the way, CAN be strong - they have a system whereby a woman can be anything except the Thain, and hobbit matriarchs run their families for years, even if their husbands die and there's a male heir. Tolkien wrote a very funny letter describing how Pippin's sister Pearl accidentally-on-purpose disposed of the female tyrant in their family...Also, Dwarf women look so like the guys - how do we know Gimli wasn't "daughter of Gloin"? (g)

[Belethfacwen]

Also, there are no evil Human/Elvish/Hobbit female characters (ie excluding Shelob and Ungoliant). In fact, there are no female characters with flaws that might cause us to disapprove of them in some way. In other words, there are no female Feanors, Wormtongues or Maeglins. The only female character that I can think of that comes anywhere near is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and her flaws are petty in the scheme of things, and she ends up with our sympathy.

To be picky, there's also Thuringwethil.
Looking at these three (I'm not going to go into Lobelia, because as you stated, her 'evils' were just petty..) Thuringwethil, Ungoliant, and Shelob..Well, more so about Thuringwethil and Shelob. So Tolkien didn't have many main female characters, and even less evil ones. But the ones that were evil did accomplish a lot, such as Ungoliant... Morgoth couldn't have taken the Light of the Trees without her, IMO. Thuringwethil is the weaker side of my point, the only thing I can provide for her is that she provided Luthien a good disguise. But she WAS Sauron's messenger, so that probably meant she gave him some good info. Shelob is the weakest aspect of my musings. She greatly hindered the quest of the destruction of the Ring, but whether she knew she was doing that is really debatable.

Well, to wind up, this concludes--We all know there's far less females in Tolkien's works than males. There were a few that did important things, like Galadriel and Eowyn. But what I'm asking is- Does anyone think Tolkien was better at crafting evil female characters than ones dedicated to doing good? Mainly their accomplishments, I mean. We don't know much description wise of Thuringwethil besdies that she was a bat like thing. Okay, I'm rambling. Thanks if you're still reading. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Lalaith]

Thank you Lily for your kind words. I also commend you for your point about hobbits. Now, there was a bunch of gentle, domestic homebodies who proved to be remarkably tough cookies when push came to shove, hmmm?

I've also been pondering on a couple of points raised earlier in this thread by Child of the 7th Age.
Firstly, this:

But what about Tolkien? Is this just coincidence that these wise women appear in the later writings, but not in LotR?

and secondly, her(?)point that Tolkien, as a married man,was considered safe to teach at women's colleges.
Despite the era and the environment he lived and worked in, Tolkien's literary portrayal of women never (except perhaps in the case of the Entwives) displayed that crusty-Oxbridge-don misogyny we find in, for example, CS Lewis. I've always maintained that his attitudes were influenced by his interest in early north European literature, where women had unusually proactive roles.
But his work as a tutor may also have influenced him. Unlike CS Lewis, who married so late that he would have been teaching just males for most of his life, Tolkien would have had intellectual dealings with female students. This may well have opened his mind to the concept of women as intellectual as well domestic forces...hence the appearance of women like Andreth in his later writings. I'm ashamed to say I've not read Morgoth's Ring but from the way it's been described, Finrod and Andreth's debate sounds a bit like a university tutorial discussion...

[The Saucepan Man]

Does anyone think Tolkien was better at crafting evil female characters than ones dedicated to doing good?

Actually, no. I think that these instances of evil female characters in JRRT's works (Ungoliant, Shelob and Thuringwethil) only lend support to the argument that his view of woman as literary characters was somewhat idealised. Discounting Lobelia (for the reasons already stated), they were all hideous creature-monsters, and there is little development of their characters beyond the fact that they are evil.

In these respects, they provide a sharp contrast to the Human and Elf females that we encounter, who are invariably fair and virtuous, and many of whom (Eowyn in particular, as this thread has shown) are well-developed and complex characters. JRRT seems to have been far more comfortable with female characters when they were of the "fair and virtuous" variety. (But, then again, aren't we all [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].)

[Lyta_Underhill]

I suppose I strayed slightly from the main thrust of the topic when I decided to delve more deeply into the character of Eowyn. But such is inevitable, I suppose. As for the idea of Eowyn being a candidate for membership in the Fellowship, I would certainly not put her forward for such a thing. I believe that, in her unbalanced state, she would fall to the power of the Ring in a similar manner to Boromir. She is desperate for a means to lift Rohan out of its plight, just as Boromir is desperate to save Gondor. I think she would see the Ring in a similar light and be tempted thereby. It is difficult to foresee what anyone would do under such a strain, and that is the main stress placed upon the members of the Fellowship. Also, there is the palpable tension between her and Aragorn, which would have destabilized the membership somewhat. I do not see Aragorn being dangerously distracted, however. A different female may have provided less of a destabilization, but there would be a slightly different dynamic between the Fellowship members--one that, I think, Tolkien did not wish to spend time on, as it would have distracted from the main thrust of the saga.

As was said earlier, I do think that the Fellowship could have admitted of a female member, but not necessarily that it should. I, too, prefer the books as they are written; but it is always interesting to speculate, and I wouldn't give up my right to do that, no matter what the merit of the work being speculated upon.

It would have been interesting to see "Boromira" though, Nurumaiel! I imagine her as a sort of Brunnhilde type Valkyrie, armor-clad and terrible! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] And of a female of the Istari? I think the dynamic between her and the hobbits would have been quite different and less chummy, unfortunately, but in one aspect I can see it: a feminine wizard would have separated the Istari from the mortals in a further way, creating yet another level of removal and thus of awe. This could work for some stories, but I think I prefer the more sociable and interactive Gandalf as he is. I don't think there would have been quite the subtle charm of the relationships with the hobbits in particular with a female wizard in charge.

These are just my impressions, not based on facts or even logic sometimes; but I am quick to admit influence of intuition. (A woman thing, I suppose!) [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Lyta

[Atariel]

i have several points to make, some of which are a bit silly, so if you'll just bear with me:

1) the menstrual cycle. You can hardly expect a woman to want to be trudging over mountains, or fighting off orcs, or doing anything strenuous when they're either pre-mentstrual, menstrual or post-menstrual (and this happens to take up a lot of time)

2) the girliness. yes, i know that there are girls who come along and aren't scared of a thing. but i hardly think that anyone would want to traipse through Moria in the pitch black and dust, getting their dress dirty. Becuase, inevitably, they would be wearing dresses.

3) the male camaraderie. Were there a woman in the fellowship, chances are they would fall in love with someone, or have an argument with someone. Women are notoriously *****y, and this would break up the whole male Wherever You Go, I Go thingy.

4) the death and destruction. i'm not necessarily the MOST feminine person in the world (not saying that i'm particularly masculine, though) but i still go to pieces if someone dies, even just in films. women tend- TEND, mark that- to be more sensitive than the average bloke, and a wailing, moaning girlie isn't so convenient when trying to escape from rampaging orcs.

5) the unrealisticness. all the women in M-E seem to be very feminine. yes, EVEN eowyn. who would really choose to put their life on the line? and i don't actually think that the elves- who were perhaps traditionalists- would have allowed women to be at the Council of Elrond. AND the men folk (fathers, brothers, whoever was in charge of the woman)would hardly have permitted them to go, anyway, in case she died or fell in love with someone unsuitable.

i think people have to remember that middle earth had a very medieval soceity, and that the idea of a woman having an important role in, ultimately, a violent cause is laughable

[Lalaith]

Oh dear. Groundhog thread.
Atariel, no offence, mate, but we've covered this ground before about 30 posts back.

You know, I'm going to blame PJ for all of this. Most of these objections are not based on idea of females (maia, dwarves etc) joining the fellowship. The objections are to Hollywood actresses joining the fellowship. Which of course is entirely reasonable.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

2) the girliness. yes, i know that there are girls who come along and aren't scared of a thing. but i hardly think that anyone would want to traipse through Moria in the pitch black and dust, getting their dress dirty. Becuase, inevitably, they would be wearing dresses.

And I suppose when Gandalf wears a dress, it is called a 'robe!' Anyone ever wonder what Gandalf wears UNDER the robe? Anyone think that women might wear bloomers or something else under their dresses? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

And what about the getup that Frodo is forced to wear after he is stripped bare by the Orcs? I doubt any orc-pants were worn there, not small enough for little hobbit...that would be a stylishly belted orc-cloak with matching oversized helmet...hmmm...Frodo in a dress?

More silliness, anyone? I'm game! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Lyta

[Atariel]

je suis desolee, peeps, but i read the first three posts and then decided to write something, so it isn't as if it's entirely my fault if something's already been covered. and gandalf was dusty anyway. and i hardly think he'd appreciate people with- shock horror!- electricity discussing the manner of his undergarments, which are probably magical anyway. sorry if i was silly, but i did warn you....

[Lyta_Underhill]

A little silliness is good for the soul, Atariel! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] And, being at times irrepressibly Pippinish, I'd probably talk about Gandalf's underthings to his face! And he'd turn me into a newt and I'd hide in his hat! But if you're looking for someone to dance on the table and sing bawdy songs, look to Frodo! *snickers and gets off table*

Cheers,
Lyta (A Took from an unfashionable part of the Shire...being so unfashionable she has to use another name and wear heavy makeup to disguise herself...)

P.S. I know this has nothing to do with Females in the Fellowship, but it has everything to do with Gandalf's dress sense!

P.P.S. I wonder what magical underwear does?

[Lush]

*the most notoriously serious member of the Downs stomps in*

Don't mean to bah-humbug you, Atariel, but it usually helps if you read the entire thread before posting a long, drawn-out comment, even if you spot something that you are dying to address right away. Perhaps if you had, you would have remembered that the menstrual cycle doesn't affect all women in the same way: female athletes deal with it, for example, as do the women in the military. Perhaps its silly to compare our modern world with that of Middle Earth in that fashion (ME certainly didn't have Midol, although the medicines of the Elves could conceivably take care of that anyway), but then again, it's a made-up world you're talking about here. Anything is possible as long as the author can imagine it, and make it so it makes sense.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Bêthberry]

*applauds Lush and Child for demonstrating wherein lies discussion and debate, as opposed to mere opinion.*

As to the effect of Tolkien's experience as a teacher, here's a quotation from a letter to his son Michael, 6 - 8 March 1941. Letter # 43.

Under this impulse [that of sympathy and understanding] they [women] can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point -- and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him.

Hmm.

Bethberry