Thread: no female fighters in LotR?

I've noticed a pattern here,why aren't women and other females allowed to fight? Eowen wanted to fight in the war,but she was told to stay at home. The only way that she had gotten to go to fight,was when she disguised herself as a male soldier. She and Arwen are good at battling,so why did they not fight,and was kept out of battling?

What is a sheild maiden anyway?

While we may admire his literature greatly, simple fact is Tolkien was not a great supporter of women's rights.

It was the 1940s though, he wasn't exactly alone in his views at the time.

He's right, it was not a popular view at the time. And historically of course women were generally not allowed to fight, so out of a historical view it would almost not have been "correct", despite this being a fictional tale.

However, never forget that he did respect the characters of Arwen and especially Eowyn, showing their compassion and bravery. Maybe generally he didn't allow women to fight, but he did let Eowyn.

Originally Posted by Riverleaf_Breeze

I've noticed a pattern here,why aren't women and other females allowed to fight? Eowen wanted to fight in the war,but she was told to stay at home. The only way that she had gotten to go to fight,was when she disguised herself as a male soldier. She and Arwen are good at battling,so why did they not fight,and was kept out of battling?

Eowyn was told to stay behind because her father wanted her out of harm's way. As for Arwen, in the book she's gentle rather than scrappy and as a general rule female Elves didn't fight. (Not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to, according to Tolkien).

What is a sheild maiden anyway?

See this Wikipedia article.

Women warriors were rare in European medieval societies, which LOTR is partly inspired by. Joan of Arc was an exception, much like Eowyn. And like Eowyn, she made her first travel to the war front disguised as a man.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

As for Arwen, in the book she's gentle rather than scrappy and as a general rule female Elves didn't fight. (Not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to, according to Tolkien).

But when they did... We get Lúthien, who braved both Sauron and Morgoth face to face, and lived to tell about it.

Lúthien did not actually fight though... she used her powers to put Morgoth to sleep, so Beren could steal a Silmaril from him. That's not exactly what I'd call fighting, though I suppose it's more than passive resistance. I seem to recall something about her turning into some animal, but I don't recall her engaging in anything that could be called violence.

Women are generally not allowed to fight in LOTR because women in the 1940's were generally not allowed or expected to fight. Pretty simple.

Originally Posted by gregbrown0506

And historically of course women were generally not allowed to fight, so out of a historical view it would almost not have been "correct", despite this being a fictional tale.

Why does modern (post-Romantic/post-Victorian) man have this misconception about the historical place of women on the battlefield?

HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, it is true that women were not sent off to war, with rare exceptions, such as the Scythians, Ionics, Syrians, Egyptians, and Sarmatians. HOWEVER, it is important to note that the reasons women were left behind at home:

1.) Men were expendable, women were not. A solitary man could repopulate a tribe so long as there were plenty of women. A solitary woman however could not repopulate a tribe no matter how many men there were. Therefore, the expendables were sent off to fight and die while those critical to survival were kept at home.

2.) Whom do you leave to defend your homeland? Who do you make your last line of defense? You leave the defense of your homeland to the most brutal of warriors who will ruthlessly fight to the death to protect it...that being the women. If you remember your Greek Mythology well Ares may have been the God of War but he could never defeat Athena, the Goddess of Home & Hearth, who could rout him every single time. Julius Caesar commented in his Gaulic Wars how easily his Legions conquered the Celtic men, but when they encountered the Celtic women defending their homes their brutality in battle caused his Legions to flee from the battlefield, under penalty of death, fearing the fury of Celtic women on the battlefield more than a death by Rome for their desertion. (This is the reason why Boudicca was later so greatly feared by Rome a century in a half later.)

So yes, historically women rarely WENT to battle, but by no means were they not allowed to fight, but rather encouraged to do such when the battle CAME to them!

Every married man knows the wrath of a woman. Every man who has ever scorned a lover knows the wrath of a woman. Imagine the wrath of a woman when you threaten her village, her home, and her children! There is no horror in any Hell that could ever compare with a woman in battle!

In many ancient cultures male warriors were not trained by other male warriors, rather the male warriors were taught and trained by the women in the ways of war. Even under Christendom, in the Middle-Ages, the tradition of giving one's sword the name of a woman was still practiced. They were not named after women in remembrance of lovers left behind as the Romantic Period may suggest in their Arthurian Tales, but out of tradition to denote the savage ferocity of the female in battle.

Even the Norse feared women in battle. The sight of a Valkyrie was not a happy thing as Wagner may have portrayed it to be in the 19th century. Any Norseman would dread the sight of a Valkyrie as no matter how many men he may slay on the battlefield he knew that his battle prowess could not compare and his death was assured. The Varangians (Baltic Vikings) routinely allowed women to go to battle with them, and after but one battle against them the Byzantines feared them so greatly (despite actually winning the field) that they invited them to become as personal bodyguards to the Emperor.

Tolkien knew his history and no doubt knew that women were fearsome warriors, however he was a gentleman of his Age, and very terribly British, and as such his writings gloss over history to rewrite it anew in a more sexist way that belittled the importance female warriors held in our ancient world, portraying them not unlike the Romantics did in a previous century.

Originally Posted by TsarithArcher

-snip-

Amusing post, thanks for the lolz.

Originally Posted by Linwen

But when they did... We get Lúthien, who braved both Sauron and Morgoth face to face, and lived to tell about it.

But only because she had that nice big doggie Huan to see off Sauron and his werewolves, and because Beren stood between her and Carcharoth when they were trying to flee Angband. She was an enchantress, and it was specifically said to be dealing death by their own hands which female Elves typically avoided. Magicking the heck out of Morgoth & Co. and sending them to sleep was very cool but doesn't count

Originally Posted by TsarithArcher

Why does modern (post-Romantic/post-Victorian) man have this misconception about the historical place of women on the battlefield? .....

And of course you have a scientific source for your post-feminist point of view?

Especially for that part:

In many ancient cultures male warriors were not trained by other male warriors, rather the male warriors were taught and trained by the women in the ways of war.

Originally Posted by Dragnipurake

And of course you have a scientific source for your post-feminist point of view?

I thought that post was tongue-in-cheek?

Originally Posted by Dragnipurake

And of course you have a scientific source for your post-feminist point of view?

Especially for that part:

Use your Google-Fu young padawan! I already dropped many specific cultures and proper names in my post. If you need specifics look up anything about the Spartan academies for boys run by the women (the girls were also trained for battle but at home), or in the Ulster Cycle where Scathach trains the great Irish warrior Cu Chulainn (as Aiofe does for their son Connla likewise in turn). Or refer to the Bangaisgedaig as the women trainers of warriors are commonly called in other Gaelic cultures.

Think about it...going off to war in ancient times was something that took the men away from the home for a decade or more...assuming they even lived to return home. Who do you think taught the next generation of boys to fight if the men were away or dead? It's simple logic really. It doesn't take a brain-surgeon/rocket-scientist to figure that one out.

(Even the Romantic-Era Arthurian Tales didn't dare deny this, but had to rewrite it romantically with the women knighting the men, or bequeathing swords upon the men, or granting them a token of their favor which would make the invincible in battle.)

If you insist on actual sources I suppose I can post some book titles whence I return home.

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

I thought that post was tongue-in-cheek?

It half was...partially because I'm always T.I.C. and partially because I'm a d00d (not a feminist by any means. I personally delight in making feminists squirm by referring to Mary Wollstonecraft as Mary Shelley. They don't seem to like it when you refer to the first modern feminist by her married name. Go figure!). However, I have dated enough 80lb red-headed Irish girls to know well enough to fear women in battle, so that when I read Julius Caesar's own journal bragging about his conquests and then complaining how his highly trained elite troops fled in terror from Gaul women on the battlefield I can laugh knowing exactly why those Roman Legions fled...as any wise man would have done precisely the same in their shoes! ;p

I believe Tolkien is pretty clear on what his thoughts are on women in war, and I don't believe it has anything to do with "dis-empowering women".

Tolkien regards women fighting in war as a tragedy; a travesty. Something that must not happen on the grounds of moral correctness. Keep in mind that he is 1) catholic 2) british 3) staunchly moralistic and finally 4) living in the early C20th.

It is not because women couldn't fight that he kept them out (though maybe he thought so), it is more that women SHOULDN'T fight that he wrote his female characters the way they are.

The genders are not equal. Let's get that out of the way, right off the bat. There is (or certainly can be) PARITY between the genders, but the genders will never be equal. And to tell you the truth, I honestly believe the women have the more valuable role in our society. Men's ability to physically overwhelm another person is a fleeting victory at best. Loud and braggish, it is quickly forgotten. But women's ability to nurture, to create, that is the continuation of a society more than any conquest allows. To throw a woman into a battle where such destruction reigns is to bring orc-feet into the Nimrodel; to lay waste to the forest of Isengard; to pollute the pure light of the trees with lust and greed. It is PRECISELY from its vulnerability and transience that a thing derives its beauty.

Love is not about building walls or defeating enemies through contests/conquests. Love is about rendering oneself vulnerable and open to taking an insane risk. How crazy is it to believe that someone would want to stay with you for the rest of your life? Pretty crazy. But that's the power of love, that it can overcome such things.

This is not to say that women can't perform feats of strength, nor that men cannot perform acts of compassion and caring, but that one gender is pre-disposed towards one.

This post is almost absurdly reductionist, but in the interest of the audience (an online forum, not a bunch of people looking for essays or novels) I'm trying to keep it brief.




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




Other food for thought in the men vs. women line:

Hierarchy vs network-web
Competition versus collaboration

I am not saying that one is better than the other; merely different. And each has its place. Right tool for the right job....

Originally Posted by TsarithArcher

However, I have dated enough 80lb red-headed Irish girls to know well enough to fear women in battle, so that when I read Julius Caesar's own journal bragging about his conquests and then complaining how his highly trained elite troops fled in terror from Gaul women on the battlefield I can laugh knowing exactly why those Roman Legions fled...as any wise man would have done precisely the same in their shoes! ;p

At a guess I would say perhaps that was because they underestimated their opposition, thinking them of a little worth. Then when they turned round and showed a bit of gumption they were caught unawares? Plus the legionaries were accumstomed to flattening what was in their way.

As to the point of the thread: males have generally been the fighters because a) they're physically more able and b) it's a 'pre-programmed' genetic instinct to take on that role, a load of males didn't one day say: 'Hey, tell you what, we'll do the fighting you do the cooking', they evolved into these roles.

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

As to the point of the thread: males have generally been the fighters because a) they're physically more able and b) it's a 'pre-programmed' genetic instinct to take on that role, a load of males didn't one day say: 'Hey, tell you what, we'll do the fighting you do the cooking', they evolved into these roles.

The cultures that trained women to fight have been few, because someone had to stay home and keep the farm going while the men-- members in general of the physically stronger and more violence-prone sex-- were away fighting. Bearing and raising children, cooking, laundry, house-cleaning, sewing, caring for livestock, and helping out on the farm during growing season would leave a peasant woman little time for military training.

When I first read The Lord of the Rings, I viewed the Rohirrim as somewhat like American pioneers. The women all had to learn some basic defense, but only noblewomen like Eowyn could have the time and resources to train well enough to join a fighting force.

In melee combat, and also with bows and crossbows, men have an advantage (most men, over most women, allowing for exceptions!). It's only with the invention of guns and artillery that women can be equally effective fighters.

Boudicca went into battle, but she did not wield any weapons, that I can find. I also was not able to find any reference to Gallic women routing Caesar's troops.

Although you didn't see them fight much in LOTR, in the HOME series Tolkien mentions that elf female warriors were equal to males until they had children, at which time they gave more of their Fea to the child than the men did. Also, elves believe killing interfered with ones healing abilities, as most healers were women, they avoided hunting and battle. All duties could be done be either gender in elf societies except the making of bread, that was done by females only.

Its of note that Elrond was considered a great healer, perhaps this is why in the Third age, we don't see him leading elves in battle as he did in the Second Age.

It's simple. There was no women's lib in the 40's. That was the 70's with Helen Reddy!

Originally Posted by Andjay

Other food for thought in the men vs. women line:

Hierarchy vs network-web
Competition versus collaboration

All I'm going to say is that I've seen firsthand what happens when women collaborate. In my experience, it's never pretty.

Otherwise, I tend to agree with you. Men and women aren't the same, regardless of what some people try to say. But that in no way makes one gender inferior to the other. They're just different. Without at least one of each, the human race can't survive.

Anyway, you have to at least give Tolkien *some* credit. In a time dominated by male-oriented thinking (or whatever you wish to call it) the fact that he even wrote Eowyn into battle was probably a big deal. Sure, he didn't write a lot of women into combat roles, but he also broke the mold a bit by giving a few, select female characters a more significant role. Yes, Eowyn had to disguise herself from the other Rohirrim, but Tolkien didn't disguise her from the reader. Just because the Rohirrim wouldn't have wanted her to fight doesn't mean that Tolkien felt the same way. Considering the current trends during Tolkien's time, I'm sure he still wasn't completely, 100% pro-woman, but he must have put her there for some reason. I would love to know what was going on in his mind when he was developing Eowyn.

Heck, I would love to know what was going on in the good Professor's mind when he was developing his entire Legendarium!

Interesting thread! I've enjoyed reading the discussion.

Apart from possibly making Eowyn an exception to the rule as a woman who went to battle, I thought part of it was to fulfill a prophesy made by Glorfindel in the Third Age?

I may be going off on a tangent here, but during the Battle of Fornost, the Witch-King's forces were overrun, but he escaped.

Glorfindel then stated:

"Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall"

The Lord of the Rings Appendix A I (iv), Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion

So perhaps, this was part of Tolkien's intricate web of storytelling? I'd like to think so!

Poor Tolkien. His books were written in another time and he has been gone for 40 years and he is accused of male chauvinism and racism in his books by forum members in a game forum dedicated to Middle Earth.

I think a bunch of the dwarves are females with beards.

Sorry, someone had to mention that.

I think female archers, at least, would have been very practical in times of war, especially when Melkor and Sauron were wiping out thousands of enemies per war.

I really loved the story of Lúthien Tinúviel. When she was imprisoned by her overprotective father she didn't take the damsel in distress stance you could expect from a princess. She fled on her own, defended herself, got some friend (and didn't kill him like Túrin) and then went to rescue her lover instead of waiting for him to rescue her. And yes, she didn't wield a sword, but she got further than Fingolfin did, didn't she.
Beren instead, despite of his earlier prowess proved quite useless in Angband. He took one silmáril rather than the three of them, withstood the pain instead of letting Lúthien carry it, and, you know, he bravely lost his hand.

Originally Posted by IttleBubba

I think a bunch of the dwarves are females with beards.

Sorry, someone had to mention that.

I think female archers, at least, would have been very practical in times of war, especially when Melkor and Sauron were wiping out thousands of enemies per war.

I love Cheri from Terry Pratchet's books and like to think many Tolkien dwarves are like that. Who knows.
Just one thing, lack of physical strength doesn't mean you're better suited to be an archer than a melee fighter. You need really strong arms to pull the string and hold your hand steady.

And a bit off topic, but I'm tired of seeing people say men and women aren't equal in capacities. Of course they aren't, when feminists talk about gender equality they mean equality of rights. And of course men and women aren't equal in rights, but most people agrees they should.

The example of Eowyn does not work to break up Tolkiens set belief that women dont belong on the battlefield (for whatever reasons he had).

The only reason to put her there is to negate the thousand years old prophecy that no man can slay the witch king. While she of course displays fighting ability in slaying the beast, her whole role in the battle is to lend a female hand to landing a lucky stab at the wraiths´ face. Not a fighter, an opportunist. Her destiny, like that of pretty much all other female characters I can remember save Galadriel, is to forever stand in the shadow of men and prophecy.

Lets be real here, Middle Earth is not the right place to look for social commentary. What makes the Tolkien lore so exceptional is the rich legendarium. On the other hand, it neuters all free will and independent character development as everything is basically running according to thousand years old plans and workings.

Originally Posted by Vandervahn

Lets be real here, Middle Earth is not the right place to look for social commentary.

Why not? I think the themes in Tolkien's world are just as relevant to real life today as they were back when he wrote them. Things are rarely simple even in the books.

Originally Posted by Vandervahn

What makes the Tolkien lore so exceptional is the rich legendarium.

Agreed, but I don't think it's the only thing.

Originally Posted by Vandervahn

On the other hand, it neuters all free will and independent character development as everything is basically running according to thousand years old plans and workings.

This is still up for debate too I think. There's always going to be the question of free will vs fate. I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive myself. I see Middle-Earth as full of people who make choices, just as we do. Isildur chose to keep the One Ring rather than destroy it. Boromir chose to try to take the ring from Frodo. Galadriel chose to found the White Council to challenge the growing threat of darkness. Eowyn chose to ride into battle against conventional ideals. Were they all also fated to do these things? Perhaps they were, but I don't think that makes the choice any less important.

Originally Posted by Osmunda

I love Cheri from Terry Pratchet's books and like to think many Tolkien dwarves are like that. Who knows.

Tolkien said otherwise.

In the words of the mighty Yoda: "Wars make not one great!"

A woman (or man for that matter) does not need to be a fighter to be a strong person, Galadriel was an incredibly strong character in any definition. Eowyn was a fighter and also a very strong character, but the character obviously had never really felt love, and just as obviously desired it, although she didn't know it. She chose to give the love of the blade up for the love of Faramir. Sexism does not enter into it.

Tolkien was a product of his times, nothing more. Fighting orcs? Totally 1940s. Stewards constructing funeral pyres for their still-living sons? 1940s. All of those cookie-cutter cultures in Middle Earth precisely mirror the 1940s in almost every respect. Yet for all his lack of originality, he somehow bucked the trend when it came to women fighting. In Unfinished tales, for instance, he says that Galadriel fought heroically during the kinslaying.

Originally Posted by Evenprimes

Tolkien was a product of his times, nothing more. Fighting orcs? Totally 1940s. Stewards constructing funeral pyres for their still-living sons? 1940s. All of those cookie-cutter cultures in Middle Earth precisely mirror the 1940s in almost every respect.

Care to enlighten us on which cultures you are referring to ? Tolkien quite categorically stated that LOTR was not an allegory of it's times, particularly WW2 or the state of England in the immediate post-war period. I think his cultures reflect more on ancient mythologies, Icelandic, Finnish, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon than anything more recent. Of course it also represents his more ancient, noble and heroic idea of Faerie as opposed to the Victorian pixie and sprite ideas. I'm not saying you're wrong, just curious what you base this upon.

Originally Posted by Evenprimes

Tolkien was a product of his times, nothing more. Fighting orcs? Totally 1940s.

Totally 1914-1918, rather, or to be more precise the time Tolkien spent on the Western Front before he was invalided out; needless to say, that had a very powerful and lasting effect on his imagination, and he wrote The Fall of Gondolin while he was convalescing. You need to do a bit more reading round the subject. Echoes of the Great War appear elsewhere in his work (e.g. the Dead Marshes in LOTR).

Stewards constructing funeral pyres for their still-living sons? 1940s. All of those cookie-cutter cultures in Middle Earth precisely mirror the 1940s in almost every respect.

tuor66 is quite right, Tolkien himself explicitly denied any such connection:

"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-Dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves."

*sigh* For those who missed it, I was being sarcastic in my last post. Tolkien was actually a briliantly creative writer who drew on myth and legends from vast stretches of human history, and went far beyond them. The many cultures of Middle Earth are very different from each other, and it's folly to say that the view of women most prevalent in the culture around him was transposed onto every single culture in Middle Earth.

I believe in the history about the First Men, when they get to Beleriand the peoplo known as the Haladin had to figth the Orcs, even the women. Check on that to see if it's true.

Originally Posted by Nomendil

I believe in the history about the First Men, when they get to Beleriand the peoplo known as the Haladin had to figth the Orcs, even the women. Check on that to see if it's true.

I found this:

Now the Haladin did not live under the rule of lords or many together, but each homestead was set apart and governed it's own affairs, and they were slow to unite. But there was among them a man named Haldad, who was masterful and fearless...he built a stockade across from water to water and behind it they led all the women and children they could save. There they were besieged until their food was gone.

Haldad had two children: Haleth his daughter, and Haldar his son, and both were valiant in the defense, for Haleth was a woman of great heart and strength.

- The Silmarillion Of the coming of Men into the West

Originally Posted by bambubambubambu

Apart from possibly making Eowyn an exception to the rule as a woman who went to battle, I thought part of it was to fulfill a prophesy made by Glorfindel in the Third Age?

Given that we have dwarves, elves and hobbits using a woman is not required to make the prophecy come true. All that would have been necessary in the movie would to have the hobbit get back up and finish him. The Nazgul did not realize not one but two possible killers were engaging him.

Given society at the time, I am glad that Tolkien choose to have a woman at the battle. Decided the woman would finish the Nazgul. I would to know why Tolkien wrote it the way he did.

Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty

Given that we have dwarves, elves and hobbits using a woman is not required to make the prophecy come true. All that would have been necessary in the movie would to have the hobbit get back up and finish him. The Nazgul did not realize not one but two possible killers were engaging him.

Given society at the time, I am glad that Tolkien choose to have a woman at the battle. Decided the woman would finish the Nazgul. I would to know why Tolkien wrote it the way he did.

You know I never thought about that. I suppose it didn't have to be a woman that would make the prophecy come true. It would be interesting to find out if Tolkien ever toyed with the notion of a different character filling the role...

Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty

Given society at the time, I am glad that Tolkien choose to have a woman at the battle. Decided the woman would finish the Nazgul. I would to know why Tolkien wrote it the way he did.

I'd say it's got little or nothing to do with 'society at the time' and everything to do with the fact that Tolkien was borrowing heavily from legendary sagas.

Originally Posted by bambubambubambu

You know I never thought about that. I suppose it didn't have to be a woman that would make the prophecy come true. It would be interesting to find out if Tolkien ever toyed with the notion of a different character filling the role...

This. Sort of. Even this misses the mark. The argument that he only made Eowyn a warrior because there was an existing prophecy presumes that it was necessary to Tolkien's story that there WAS a prophecy. As the professor in Narnia says, "Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"

It is not at all necessary that the prophecy was created, much less that it preceded the creation of Eowyn's character. Therefore, without further information, it is beyond us to discern whether the creation of the prophecy drove the creation of a fighting woman, or whether the creation of an interesting counter-cultural character drove the decision to create a prophecy. Silly hobbits. Without investigating Christopher's commentaries and recorded progression of the story's creation, and maybe not even then, it would be futile to guess which he created first.

More importantly, even if we suppose the prophecy came first, this is still consistent with Tolkien creating a non-fighting female character who is kills the Witch-King. The particulars of Eowyn beyond killing the Witch-King, that she trains herself in swordplay and likes to fight, is not at all necessary for the prophecy-fulfillment to take place. Therefore, a better explanation is that something beyond prophecy-arc was a motivator. The options? She is an interesting character, she presents an opportunity for social commentary, or she represents an opportunity for the expression of gender beliefs, etc.

So, to recap; the prophecy-arc turns out to be insufficient explanation for the creation of Eowyn's arc if story and character arcs require sufficient reasons and are not just arbitrary. One could argue that the moment of Eowyn's vanquishing the witch-king is much more plausible if she was a warrior than if not. But this is, again, a possible character arc, not a necessary one. Because it's possible, it's possible that another character arc would have developed the same result. Because another character arc was possible, and authors are rational, an explanation seems in order. Namely, why this arc and not another? Prophecy-fulfillment does not seem to be a sufficient reason for Feisty Eowyn over Non-Feisty Eowyn. The above three motivations do seem to be; interesting character, social commentary, or gender belief expression. Given general background understanding of how authors create stories and characters, it is both plausible and likely that he was motivated by character development in drafting Eowyn's nature as a warrior. She was the means to fulfill a prophecy, and this motivates her creation generally (again, this is all presuming that the prophecy came first in the creation.) She is also an engaging character who violates both the norms of Tolkien's present day and the era of literature from which Tolkien draws....Norse mythology. This tension is interesting and makes for great literature. I'm sure the Professor was aware of this.

What of the other two? Why such a hasty rejection? Because without further information from the professor these seem much less likely. All we can say with certainty is that he was aware that a female warrior was contrary to either his own or the Norse era from which he drew. However, it could be argued that because he wrote her, and she is sympathetic, it could be stated that he was actually an advocate. However, he also wrote sympathetic characters who disagreed with her (Theoden and Aragorn.) Therefore, it is inconclusive what his fundamental gender beliefs are from just the stories themselves, and it is even more premature to make conclusions about his beliefs about social applications of those fundamental gender beliefs are regarding battle in given contexts.

Finally, while inconclusivity coupled with charity should be enough to exonerate the professor, I'd like to make one positive argument that demonstrates Tolkien was not a chauvinist or mysogynist. (i) Assume that Tolkien was a chauvinist. (ii) If Tolkien was a chauvinist, he would have written a non-warrior woman who still would have managed to fulfill the prophecy. (iii) Tolkien did not write a non-warrior woman to fulfill the prophecy. (ii) and (iii) are a contradiction. Assumptions that cause contradictions should be rejected. Therefore, (iv) Tolkien was not a chauvinist. You may question whether (ii) is true, but there are equally powerful arguments about what Tolkien would have done if he were a chauvinist given the facts about the novel that are unchangeable, that all result in contradictions. For instance, I might argue that if he were a chauvinist, he would have created a warrior woman who was unsympathetic. I might argue that he would have created a warrior woman whose character drove home the moral that women should never become warriors. Both of these conclusions are in contradiction with what actually is in the story. Contradiction, therefore reject premise (i).

Originally Posted by Doulos

More importantly, even if we suppose the prophecy came first, this is still consistent with Tolkien creating a non-fighting female character who is kills the Witch-King. The particulars of Eowyn beyond killing the Witch-King, that she trains herself in swordplay and likes to fight, is not at all necessary for the prophecy-fulfillment to take place.

She has to be trained to fight, and well-trained at that, as she has to kill the Witch-king's winged beast in order to get to face him directly. She also has to be able to take a stand against him, and the skill with a sword to swiftly slay him when given the opportunity. And she dealt that final blow after she'd been wounded: she must, therefore, be used to hard knocks which again implies she's been trained. For her to ever be in a position to satisfy Glorfindel's foretelling of the Witch-king's fate, she has to be a warrior.

Therefore, a better explanation is that something beyond prophecy-arc was a motivator. The options? She is an interesting character, she presents an opportunity for social commentary, or she represents an opportunity for the expression of gender beliefs, etc.

As already pointed out, there's precedent for shield-maidens in Norse legendary sagas. We need look no further for inspiration than that; they appear by exception there, and Eowyn appears as an exception in LOTR. There's also a long-established trope in story-telling of having someone who is well-nigh invulnerable being felled by something that can harm him by exception. There's typically an element of contrivance: for example, Beowulf has to have the strength of ten men in order to be able to defeat Grendel, whose hide is impenetrable to any weapon made by man. Also the subsequent variation on that theme, when Beowulf slays Grendel's mother with an ancient sword he finds in her lair, one that had been forged by the Giants. An example from Norse myth is how Baldur is killed by a dart that Loki had fashioned from mistletoe using magic, mistletoe being the only thing Baldur's mother had not asked to swear not to harm him. And so it goes.

Tolkien did a creditable job of setting out Eowyn's motivations for going to war (the chance for glory, to do what she'd been trained for rather than being limited to the role society expected of her) but that's then heavily undermined by how she seems to be lost without a man, how she seems to be trying to get herself killed after having been rejected. And then she meets Faramir and all of a sudden, she finds fulfillment and reverts to stereotypical womanhood. Oh dear.

Originally Posted by Nomendil

I believe in the history about the First Men, when they get to Beleriand the peoplo known as the Haladin had to figth the Orcs, even the women. Check on that to see if it's true.

That would be the Folk of Haleth, also called the Haladin or the Men of Brethil. Here's an abridged excerpt from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-Earth" in the chapter entitled "The Druedain." The Haladin are mentioned in the chapter because they lived alongside the Druedain (better known as Woses or Wild-men in LOTR) as trusted allies.

"The Folk of Haleth were strangers to the other Atani, speaking an alien language; and though united with them in alliance with the Eldar, they remained a people apart... They did not willingly adopt new things or customs, and retained many practices that seemed strange to the Eldar and the other Atani, with whom they had few dealings except in war. Nonetheless they were esteemed as loyal allies and redoubtable warriors, though the companies that they sent to battle beyond their borders were small. For they were and remained to their end a small people, chiefly concerned to protect their own woodlands, and they excelled in forest warfare. Indeed for long even those Orcs specially trained for this dared not set foot near their borders. One of the strange practices spoken of was that many of their warriors were women, though few of these went abroad to fight in the great battles. This custom was evidently ancient; for their chieftainess Haleth was a renowned Amazon with a picked bodyguard of women..."

I should note that the chieftainess Haleth was the great aunt of Elrond Half-Elven, about seven generations before him.

I have one further point for the group to consider in the context of the discussion. There is a competing interpretation of the text that the words of Glorfindel were not a prophecy but merely a foretelling. The difference is important. In a prophecy, there is a supernatural force at play which will act to bring about the outcome, frequently in spite of countervailing attempts to thwart the prophecy. In a foretelling, the speaker is merely seeing through time to what will happen, but there is no supernatural force working to ensure that the event occurs. To be sure, there is a supernatural factor involved in the foreseeing itself, but it is grounded in the ability to pierce the veil of time, rather than being a manifestation of a cosmic destiny.

In the example of Eowyn vs. the Witch King, it isn't necessarily the case that she was meant to defeat him - but rather that Glorfindel merely foresaw how events would ultimately play out. If so, then it isn't true that the Witch King was in fact invulnerable to all other harm. It may certainly be the case that all of the nazgul enjoyed some protection against normal weapons*, and there is evidence in LOTR and Tolkien's other writings that Tolkien may have thought so. However, it would not be the case that the Witch King in particular enjoyed a special immunity from harm by all persons of the category "man." I admit that the Witch King himself seems to have thought he did (see his words to Eowyn). But that is not proof of anything. He was speaking as a character in the story, and like any other in-story character would have been subject to misinterpretations of the import of Glorfindel's words.

*If this is true, then Merry's use of a "Westernesse" blade against the WK may have been more crucial to the outcome than as a mere distraction. It may indeed have been the key to weakening the WK's arcane protections so that Eowyn's Rohan blade could strike true.