Thread: no female fighters in LotR?

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

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.

................And then she meets Faramir and all of a sudden, she finds fulfillment and reverts to stereotypical womanhood. Oh dear.

Nah, she doesn't have to be a warrior. There is no necessity to this claim, merely likelihood (I argued it above.) One can think of a scenario in which Eowyn was merely in the right place at the right time and fulfilled the plot device. As such this still doesn't answer the material point of what his motivation in making her a warrior was. A prophecy was not a necessary element to the story, therefore it cannot be said that Eowyn was a necessary plot device (I am using the force of logical or philosophical necessity in this term, perhaps re-reading my post with this in mind might add clarity to the strength of my conclusion.)

As to your further claim that there were sources to draw from, I'm not sure these have any relevance to this particular point. We're talking about Tolkien's motivation...was it chauvinism or not? These add neither support nor detraction for either position. Again, he was clearly writing a sympathetic female warrior. I take it that Tolkien found her character to be an enrichment to his story and the best explanation for such a disposition on the professor's part clearly points to him NOT being a chauvinist. As to your last line there, this is typical post-modern feminist talk. Faramir ALSO finds a woman and fulfillment in his relationship with her.

Originally Posted by Doulos

Nah, she doesn't have to be a warrior. There is no necessity to this claim, merely likelihood (I argued it above.) One can think of a scenario in which Eowyn was merely in the right place at the right time and fulfilled the plot device. As such this still doesn't answer the material point of what his motivation in making her a warrior was. A prophecy was not a necessary element to the story, therefore it cannot be said that Eowyn was a necessary plot device (I am using the force of logical or philosophical necessity in this term, perhaps re-reading my post with this in mind might add clarity to the strength of my conclusion.)

I read it properly the first time, thank you very much. My point was that if Eowyn was to kill the Witch-king in a suitably satisfying manner, worthy of an epic (rather than by the mere accident you imply) then she had to have been trained as a warrior. Talk of whether it was or was not 'a necessary plot device' is moot in the larger discussion.

As to your further claim that there were sources to draw from, I'm not sure these have any relevance to this particular point. We're talking about Tolkien's motivation...was it chauvinism or not? These add neither support nor detraction for either position. Again, he was clearly writing a sympathetic female warrior. I take it that Tolkien found her character to be an enrichment to his story and the best explanation for such a disposition on the professor's part clearly points to him NOT being a chauvinist. As to your last line there, this is typical post-modern feminist talk. Faramir ALSO finds a woman and fulfillment in his relationship with her.

He appears to have been writing what he fancied to be a sympathetic female warrior and largely succeeded but as I see it, both his limitations in writing female characters (which appear to have been due to limited breadth of experience in being around women) and the predominant male attitudes of his time (particularly in traditional academia, the circles he moved in) appear to have conspired against him somewhat. I don't like the implication that Eowyn had been fighting against her own femininity and was only truly happy once she adopted what Tolkien appears to have seen as the proper role for women.

I am not saying that Tolkien was a male chauvinist; I am, however, saying that he was a man of his time, and it shows.

For me, Eowen's part is about a lesser "Man" (person) who shows courage at the facing of doom and succeeding by chance. She is neither recruited / enlisted nor allowed to ride into open battle, to what extend she had knowledge in the Warriors Art is not of importance. That person stands up for her beloved one's, for her dreams.

And that is the intend of the story to me.



But the initial question begs an explanation.
What makes you a "female fighter" or male for that part and is it enough to be a fighter?

Is it enough to be trained and able to use weapons?
Or joining a faction in open warfare qualifies you as a "real" fighter = soldier? For that matter as far as i can see.

There have been many female fighters in LOTR but none are soldiers of armies serving in battle and warfare as regular troops.
Clans fighting for territory, elves defending their home, or hobbits for that matter do not equal an army who marches out for power.

So i don't see anything wrong with females in LOTR_O. Maybe the Captain class is out of shape, but then again no captain here belongs to an army and neither has real Troops. I'd personally would have called that class Nobles or Knights, seeing how they got just a squire to hold their Banner

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

And then she meets Faramir and all of a sudden, she finds fulfillment and reverts to stereotypical womanhood. Oh dear.

I think it's awesome that the two of them fell in love. What's wrong with her finding fulfillment after finding a man that she loves.

I loved the conversation between the two of them while everyone marched off to see 'Ol Big Eye. I cannot see how this is stereotype. Faramir, a man, also found fulfillment in her. You say Tolkien was a man of his time, I think he was a man AHEAD of his time.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

I think it's awesome that the two of them fell in love. What's wrong with her finding fulfillment after finding a man that she loves.

Let's just say I find the happy ending to be somewhat rosily idealised.

I loved the conversation between the two of them while everyone marched off to see 'Ol Big Eye. I cannot see how this is stereotype. Faramir, a man, also found fulfillment in her. You say Tolkien was a man of his time, I think he was a man AHEAD of his time.

It looks to me like straightforward romance of a kind that could have appeared at pretty much any time in English literary history, from High Medieval times onwards; I can't for the life of me see how that makes Tolkien ahead of his time, there. Care to explain what you think makes it so?

Originally Posted by SungXe

What makes you a "female fighter" or male for that part and is it enough to be a fighter?

Is it enough to be trained and able to use weapons?

Yes.

There have been many female fighters in LOTR but none are soldiers of armies serving in battle and warfare as regular troops.
Clans fighting for territory, elves defending their home, or hobbits for that matter do not equal an army who marches out for power.

Nonsense. Female warriors are only at all common in some cultures, typically those with a reputation for being rather wild (the Celts being a notorious real-life example). In Middle-earth terms, that'd be people like the Dunlendings. Not the Bree-folk, not hobbits, not Elves (except as a last resort), absolutely not the Dwarves, and not civilised Men like the Men of Dale or the Gondorians. Look at real-life medieval times: how many warrior women were there then? Some, but they had to disguise themselves as men to go to war.

So i don't see anything wrong with females in LOTR_O.

I can only conclude you've not read the books. Or much history.

Originally Posted by bambubambubambu

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.



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



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.

*derails topic further*

The most useful concept I have found here is actually from a manga (sob what is my life) - where the character describes "fate" in the sense of "things that are inevitable" because of the choices that you make, choices that you would inevitably make, not because anyone makes you do so, but because you by simply being you would make those choices. Looking at it that way, it is "fate" that Eowyn slays the Witch King, because Eowyn as a character makes choices that lead her to be in such a position to be there, at the right place, at the right time. (That she is in the right place at the right time, The Professor would have said, points to a Higher Power that meant her to be there. I believe it has been mentioned elsewhere, that Tolkien, reflecting his Christian beliefs, puts great stock in the concept of One "who works all things for the good of those who love Him" Romans 8:28 - see Gandalf telling Frodo he was *meant* to carry the Ring). It did not have to be Eowyn who was there, but she was, because she chose to ride into battle rather than stay behind, and to ride at her King-father's side. It was "inevitable", because she made those choices.

I'm just waiting for someone to cry foul because all the members of the fellowship were male.....

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Nonsense. Female warriors are only at all common in some cultures, typically those with a reputation for being rather wild (the Celts being a notorious real-life example). In Middle-earth terms, that'd be people like the Dunlendings. Not the Bree-folk, not hobbits, not Elves (except as a last resort), absolutely not the Dwarves, and not civilised Men like the Men of Dale or the Gondorians. Look at real-life medieval times: how many warrior women were there then? Some, but they had to disguise themselves as men to go to war.


I can only conclude you've not read the books. Or much history.

Your post is utter nonsense, learn to read.
And look up the meaning of Soldier, Warrior and Fighter and especially REGULAR TROOPS. In fact what you posted is exactly what i did say. But i can't be blamed for your lack of reading comprehension.

Originally Posted by Melde

*derails topic further*

The most useful concept I have found here is actually from a manga (sob what is my life) - where the character describes "fate" in the sense of "things that are inevitable" because of the choices that you make, choices that you would inevitably make, not because anyone makes you do so, but because you by simply being you would make those choices. Looking at it that way, it is "fate" that Eowyn slays the Witch King, because Eowyn as a character makes choices that lead her to be in such a position to be there, at the right place, at the right time. (That she is in the right place at the right time, The Professor would have said, points to a Higher Power that meant her to be there. I believe it has been mentioned elsewhere, that Tolkien, reflecting his Christian beliefs, puts great stock in the concept of One "who works all things for the good of those who love Him" Romans 8:28 - see Gandalf telling Frodo he was *meant* to carry the Ring). It did not have to be Eowyn who was there, but she was, because she chose to ride into battle rather than stay behind, and to ride at her King-father's side. It was "inevitable", because she made those choices.

To add to this derailment...

Tolkien typically used the word "fate" NOT in the sense of "destiny" or something inevitable, but simply to mean a final outcome or end result. Fate in this sense is not "what is predestined to happen by forces out of ones control", but more along the lines of "the end result of actions that have already been taken or words that have already been spoken". The word comes from the Latin for "what has been spoken". To give a rather silly example, if I spend the afternoon mixing a batch of cookies and putting them in the oven, it is my fate to eat delicious cookies that evening.

To get back to the subject of Eowyn, it seems to me that a lot of people are misunderstanding her character. Eowyn wasn't meant as a character to be Tolkien's equivalent of the modern "strong kick-butt female" (a brand of character I particularly despise). Eowyn went to war out of despair, and in doing so she abandoned the responsibility that had been given to her. She wanted to die in glory because her life was so intolerable. This was a BAD THING. She was not meant to go to war, she should not have felt the need to go to war. But as Melde pointed out, Tolkien believed in the concept that God can bring good out of any situation. Likewise with Eru. Eowyn should not have been there, but her choices led her there nonetheless and so a great thing (the slaying of the witch king) was accomplished. This was fate.

It was also fate that she should meet Faramir and her soul should be healed. Speaking as a woman, I think this was one of the most beautiful parts of the book.

Originally Posted by SungXe

Your post is utter nonsense, learn to read.
And look up the meaning of Soldier, Warrior and Fighter and especially REGULAR TROOPS. In fact what you posted is exactly what i did say. But i can't be blamed for your lack of reading comprehension.

What, what I said about female 'fighters' (to use your word) not being common, the exact opposite of what you said? It's not me that's having the comprehension difficulties. You might not see any problem with there being umpteen female warriors in LOTRO, but I do. "There have been many female fighters in LOTR", you said, but that's nonsense; Tolkien didn't write it like that. It's not that he was against warrior women as such, when it was appropriate to the sort of people he was describing (like the Folk of Haleth in The Silmarillion; their women were noted for being fierce warriors, but other peoples apparently found this 'strange'), but in the overwhelming majority of cases it's men doing all the fighting. (With the women stuck at home doing all the real work, of course - just as Eowyn would have been, had she obeyed her father).

Originally Posted by Melde

*derails topic further*

I didn't think I was really derailing the topic. I didn't open the door, I was responding to Vandervahn's previous post (#24). It may be taking a side branch, but isn't discussing motives of female characters including Eowyn relevant to the original question of the thread? By the way, I do agree with what you said. (see below)

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

To add to this derailment...

Tolkien typically used the word "fate" NOT in the sense of "destiny" or something inevitable, but simply to mean a final outcome or end result. Fate in this sense is not "what is predestined to happen by forces out of ones control", but more along the lines of "the end result of actions that have already been taken or words that have already been spoken". The word comes from the Latin for "what has been spoken". To give a rather silly example, if I spend the afternoon mixing a batch of cookies and putting them in the oven, it is my fate to eat delicious cookies that evening.

To get back to the subject of Eowyn, it seems to me that a lot of people are misunderstanding her character. Eowyn wasn't meant as a character to be Tolkien's equivalent of the modern "strong kick-butt female" (a brand of character I particularly despise). Eowyn went to war out of despair, and in doing so she abandoned the responsibility that had been given to her. She wanted to die in glory because her life was so intolerable. This was a BAD THING. She was not meant to go to war, she should not have felt the need to go to war. But as Melde pointed out, Tolkien believed in the concept that God can bring good out of any situation. Likewise with Eru. Eowyn should not have been there, but her choices led her there nonetheless and so a great thing (the slaying of the witch king) was accomplished. This was fate.

It was also fate that she should meet Faramir and her soul should be healed. Speaking as a woman, I think this was one of the most beautiful parts of the book.

I think this and what Melde said are very well thought out. I don't think I was anywhere near as clear in my musings. Tolkien working in this idea would have been well in keeping with his Christian beliefs. God can and has brought good out of some really bad situations.

I certainly don't see anything wrong in the way Eowyn is portrayed in the time after she slayed the Witch-king. I think Tolkien pushed the boundries quite far in having a female not only become a warrior but defeat one of the main evil characters of the book. Having her find balance afterwards and allowing her to find peace in adopting the female role was the most logical conclusion. What should he have written instead? Eowyn carried on the ways of a warrior, seeking out the last evils in Middle-earth, and a new generation of warrior-women arise in her wake inspired by her deeds? Purleeeese.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

if I spend the afternoon mixing a batch of cookies and putting them in the oven, it is my fate to eat delicious cookies that evening.

Best derailment ever !!
mmmmmmmm......... cookies ......

Originally Posted by tuor66

Best derailment ever !!
mmmmmmmm......... cookies ......

Oooohhh now I want cookies!

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

It was also fate that she should meet Faramir and her soul should be healed. Speaking as a woman, I think this was one of the most beautiful parts of the book.

Heck, I'm a guy and I thought the exchange between the two of them was beautiful. Frodo was in Mordor, Aragorn and Co. was marching and Tolkien took the time to concentrate on Faramir and Eowyn. And not just page filler either, by the time they were done you could be tempted to say that it was a "Kodak Moment".

Tolkien was awesome beyond words.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

I read it properly the first time, thank you very much. My point was that if Eowyn was to kill the Witch-king in a suitably satisfying manner, worthy of an epic (rather than by the mere accident you imply) then she had to have been trained as a warrior. Talk of whether it was or was not 'a necessary plot device' is moot in the larger discussion.
n femininity and was only truly happy once she adopted what Tolkien appears to have seen as the proper role for women.

I am not saying that Tolkien was a male chauvinist; I am, however, saying that he was a man of his time, and it shows.

Yeah, it is important, and no I don't think you understand the force of logical necessity. I've also argued that even if he created her to fulfill the prophecy there are better reasons for her actually being a warrior. She didn't have to be. Again, she did not have to be able to do any of the things you said, because ALL of those the conditions that you argue she has to meet are contingent. "Worthy of an epic" is a highly subjective term and really has no weight on an argument for the literary necessity of her character being what it was. He could have created that scenario however he liked. He is the author.

She could have satisfied even that scenario and not been a warrior. This is is really indisputable and I won't continue to argue the point because it's so obvious. As others have claimed she merely needed to be trained with weapons, not have the disposition to desire to go to war. However, he chose to make her not only trained with weapons, but proficient at a warrior's level with them, and she had a desire to go to war.

From Lotr:

'A time may come soon,' said he, 'when none will return. Then there will be need of valour without renown, for none shall remember the deeds that are done in the last defense of your homes. Yet the deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised.'

And she answered: 'All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more. But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death.' "

Her arguments are meant to provoke the reader's sympathy with her and root for her. This has no literary necessity toward her defeating the Witch-King. Of course you'll probably argue that she wouldn't have been there if she didn't want to go to war, but this I'll reiterate again, is contingent. He could have gotten her there in other ways and still satisfied literary greatness. The best explanation is that she was created in this manner to satisfy other plot story concerns, as mentioned above, in order to enrich the story.

A "man of his times" just means that men in that age were chauvinists by your admission, so this doesn't really weaken your accusation against the man by blaming the date at which he lived for his chauvinism. In either case, the material point is whether he is a chauvinist, and it's clear he is not. I've also argued that her finding fulfillment in a relationship is perfectly gender-neutral as Faramir also found that same fulfillment, and I'm sure many married men would agree that they have found this same companion-fulfillment. Even more important, her devastation was that Aragorn broke her heart, not that her life had no purpose without a man. These are different states of affairs. Men go through the same experience after heartbreak. It does not mean that the lives of said heartbroken folks are now empty and meaningless until they find another woman, it means that romantic companionship is a fundamental human need. When the need is awoken and unmet it results in sorrow. To deny that is to deny what we call in philosophy and science, a datum. It is a brute fact that needs interpretation, it is not up for discussion whether it is a fact.

Oh, and to the comment that Elves didn't have female warriors. They not only had female warriors, they had female rulers. Galadriel led armies. Galadriel tore down the walls of Dol Guldur. Galadriel did battle against Feanor and his sons during the Kinslaying. Galadriel is at least the co-ruler in the Golden Wood.

Originally Posted by Doulos

Yeah, it is important, and no I don't think you understand the force of logical necessity.

Oh, do stop posturing like that, this isn't some philosophical debate. No, of course it isn't strictly necessary but I never said it had to be. It's dramatically necessary, though; as I said before, the story needs it for that outcome to be both credible and satisfying.

She could have satisfied even that scenario and not been a warrior. This is is really indisputable and I won't continue to argue the point because it's so obvious.

It's not in the least obvious. She has to kill the Witch-king's steed first, and that required skill. Or are you contending she could have had beginner's luck not once but twice? That would have been poor storytelling.

He could have gotten her there in other ways and still satisfied literary greatness. The best explanation is that she was created in this manner to satisfy other plot story concerns, as mentioned above, in order to enrich the story.

Could he? In what other ways could he have placed her on that battlefield? She has to want to go to war. The only real alternative would have been to have had shieldmaidens accepted as front-line warriors in Rohan, with Theoden therefore allowing her to ride to war, but that would have made it somewhat less of a tale.

A "man of his times" just means that men in that age were chauvinists by your admission, so this doesn't really weaken your accusation against the man by blaming the date at which he lived for his chauvinism. In either case, the material point is whether he is a chauvinist, and it's clear he is not.

You could save both your own time and mine by pontificating less and reading more: I already said that I did not consider him to have been a male chauvinist. What I'm saying is that as someone who was born near the end of the Victorian era, his attitudes reflected the society he grew up in and the closeted, tweedy world of academia he became part of.

Oh, and to the comment that Elves didn't have female warriors. They not only had female warriors, they had female rulers. Galadriel led armies. Galadriel tore down the walls of Dol Guldur. Galadriel did battle against Feanor and his sons during the Kinslaying. Galadriel is at least the co-ruler in the Golden Wood.

Female Elves fought as warriors by exception, only (we had this discussion earlier in the thread); Galadriel was exceptional in any number of ways and so she's no general counter-example to that. I'm not sure which armies you think she led, either. For example, the assault on Dol Guldur was led by Celeborn; Galadriel used her power to bring down its walls, true enough, but then Luthien had done much the same at Tol-in-Gaurhoth and she was certainly no warrior, so the two are unrelated. I don't think Galadriel would have actually fought at Dol Guldur.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

You could save both your own time and mine by pontificating less and reading more: I already said that I did not consider him to have been a male chauvinist. What I'm saying is that as someone who was born near the end of the Victorian era, his attitudes reflected the society he grew up in and the closeted, tweedy world of academia he became part of.

And you could be far less dismissive, again (think we met in a similar thread in General, and your attitude was much the same there). I find it a rather curious notion that being a member of the Oxbridge ivory tower league at the end of the Victorian era did automatically excuse Tolkien or other people of male chauvinism. If anything, it was the socially acceptable thing to do and be, and as such it makes sense to view his works in that light, if you want to consider his world as his male chauvinist playground. Following the school of realism - as Tolkien took pains to make Middle-earth realistic (from astronomy to cooking a rabbit in his backyard to tracing various elvish roots to Proto-Indoeuropean reconstructions, etc.) - I still doubt that Middle-earth should be viewed as a place with a blanket one-role-fits-all woman stereotype and see no good reasons that there might not have been female fighters in Middle-earth other than in exceptional situations.

As for reading more, let's see, how about them Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien? Mind you, this is a part of Letter 43, a letter of advice from J.R.R. Tolkien to his son, not concerned with Middle-earth. But this being Tolkien's philosophy with and about women, which bleeds through in some of his writings (see the Laws and Customs and Cuivienényarna, for example), I'm not surprised to find my notion above rather confirmed, and the disclaimer slapped on Middle-earth peoples with women in some non-conventional gender roles is not a big surprise considering the following. As Radhruin pointed out above, though his statement that women did not fight often historically is not all that true, smacks of bias and is rather problematic in conflating that with Middle-earth: Gondor and Rohan were not "civilized" because their women are not depicted fighting, and there is no saying that the Haradrim are "savages" because they happen to be the nebulous antagonist legions.

The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they 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. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit.

Mind you, I don't think Tolkien was a misogynist, quite the opposite, but his ideas seem rather out there to this young woman, so if I take issue with his texts, that is not because I don't love the world, but think some of his ideas are outdated. By his own admission he wanted for "other minds and hands" to go on shaping Middle-earth, so I'll claim artistic license if nothing else.

Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie

Following the school of realism - as Tolkien took pains to make Middle-earth realistic (from astronomy to cooking a rabbit in his backyard to tracing various elvish roots to Proto-Indoeuropean reconstructions, etc.) - I still doubt that Middle-earth should be viewed as a place with a blanket one-role-fits-all woman stereotype and see no good reasons that there might not have been female fighters in Middle-earth other than in exceptional situations.

It's in the books, man. That's how they're written. And 'realism' would also imply a very limited number of female warriors, except in societies which (by exception) encouraged it. I already presented what Tolkien said about the Folk of Haleth as an example: they were noted for having fierce female warriors, but the telling thing is that we're also told this was considered strange. That establishes it as an exception.

And yes, I have read letter #43. I especially remember the bit about how Tolkien considered that women needed to be intellectually 'fertilized' by men. That's the sort of condescending remark that leads me to characterize him as very much a man of his time, with some understandably old-fashioned attitudes.

As Radhruin pointed out above, though his statement that women did not fight often historically is not all that true, smacks of bias and is rather problematic in conflating that with Middle-earth: Gondor and Rohan were not "civilized" because their women are not depicted fighting, and there is no saying that the Haradrim are "savages" because they happen to be the nebulous antagonist legions.

It's the other way around: women don't fight in the armies of Gondor because that culture is portrayed as highly civilised. It's hardly as if that was without precedent: you have only to look at the history of Western culture. Rohan's less civilised, and that has women fighting by exception (and not in the front line, either, if Eowyn is any example). Among Wild Men like the Dunlendings, you wouldn't be at all surprised if warrior women were relatively common because in that they'd be like the ancient Celts. What you're attempting to misrepresent as a blanket stereotype is in reality the effect of Tolkien presenting the Free Peoples as being a generally rather civilised bunch, especially when compared to those who followed Sauron.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

It's in the books, man. That's how they're written. And 'realism' would also imply a very limited number of female warriors, except in societies which (by exception) encouraged it. I already presented what Tolkien said about the Folk of Haleth as an example: they were noted for having fierce female warriors, but the telling thing is that we're also told this was considered strange. That establishes it as an exception.

First of all: No living man am I! You look upon a woman. And that actually illustrates beautifully what I was about to note, either way. Scholarship, especially in Tolkien's era and before, was notoriously male-dominated (Marie Curie, famously, took pains to ensure that her research on Uranium radiation would be recognized as her own, because having a female author by default put it into an extremely contested position, not merely in terms of validity, but authorship as well), and where it was not male-focused, finds that did not re-emphasize the given gender stereotyping were dismissed, downplayed, ignored or re-interpreted. Until recently Roman gladiatrices were considered rare oddities, recent research has evidence that they must have been rather more common than previously assumed, and the law forbidding higher-class Roman women to train for that occupation was a reactionary one. The Scythian-Sarmatian culture had warrior women – notably dismissed as Amazons in classical antiquity – who were burried with their used weapons. Hatshepsut was not the only one of the female ruling pharaohs to lead several successful war campaigns, and she was reputed to have had a female bodyguard. You already mentioned the Celtic tribes, I'll raise you the Ingvaeones. And most of that is based on fairly recent research or re-evaluation of existing material.

And before you accuse me of conflating the real world and Middle-earth, I'm not. I'm trying to demonstrate the bias at work – doubly so in case of Tolkien. First there's Doylist bias because he as an author was immersed in that male academic enviroment. Second, there's Watsonian bias in the lore because the Red Book of Westmarch is derived from a Noldorin-Númenorean cultural tradition (yes, I know, the Laws and Customs are universal and must never be questioned) and from a sympathetic viewpoint to the same if we consider Bilbo and Frodo the authors drawing on Elrond's library for reseach purposes and from an ideological standpoint. Of course they would be looking to confirm the culture of western Middle-earth against Mordor and its allies, and most protagonists being male upper-class would quite probably be describing what they know, making everything else the exception as soon as they perceived some deviation from their point of view, whether or not that actually was true within the world of Middle-earth. That touches on far more than female fighters or the question whether Éowyn was disguising herself against discovery of her disobedience of Théoden's orders, or against discovery proper, so I won't rehash that here again. It's in the books, man. That's how they're written. Faramir is the only one who offers some illustration beyond that narrow view by pondering the fate of the dead Southron in Ithilien.

Let me rehash this very very briefly: Exceptional for the authors of the Red Book of Westmarch =/= necessarily exceptional for other viewpoints =/= objective realism.

And yes, I have read letter #43. I especially remember the bit about how Tolkien considered that women needed to be intellectually 'fertilized' by men. That's the sort of condescending remark that leads me to characterize him as very much a man of his time, with some understandably old-fashioned attitudes.

I'm intrigued now, honestly. How are these understandably old-fashioned attitudes not chauvinist, especially given the letter quoted above?

It's the other way around: women don't fight in the armies of Gondor because that culture is portrayed as highly civilised. It's hardly as if that was without precedent: you have only to look at the history of Western culture. Rohan's less civilised, and that has women fighting by exception (and not in the front line, either, if Eowyn is any example). Among Wild Men like the Dunlendings, you wouldn't be at all surprised if warrior women were relatively common because in that they'd be like the ancient Celts. What you're attempting to misrepresent as a blanket stereotype is in reality the effect of Tolkien presenting the Free Peoples as being a generally rather civilised bunch, especially when compared to those who followed Sauron.

Are you realizing you are in essence calling cultures permitting female fighters primitive, both in Middle-earth and in the history of Western culture? That's... rich. And as such I don't think I'll waste more time here when I could go clear out the Ring of Isengard with my tanked-up female elf minstrel instead. You probably don't want to talk to a savage either way.

*grunts*

Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie

First of all: No living man am I! You look upon a woman. And that actually illustrates beautifully what I was about to note, either way. Scholarship, especially in Tolkien's era and before, was notoriously male-dominated (Marie Curie, famously, took pains to ensure that her research on Uranium radiation would be recognized as her own, because having a female author by default put it into an extremely contested position, not merely in terms of validity, but authorship as well), and where it was not male-focused, finds that did not re-emphasize the given gender stereotyping were dismissed, downplayed, ignored or re-interpreted. Until recently Roman gladiatrices were considered rare oddities, recent research has evidence that they must have been rather more common than previously assumed, and the law forbidding higher-class Roman women to train for that occupation was a reactionary one. The Scythian-Sarmatian culture had warrior women – notably dismissed as Amazons in classical antiquity – who were burried with their used weapons. Hatshepsut was not the only one of the female ruling pharaohs to lead several successful war campaigns, and she was reputed to have had a female bodyguard. You already mentioned the Celtic tribes, I'll raise you the Ingvaeones. And most of that is based on fairly recent research or re-evaluation of existing material.

And the relevance of this is what, exactly? Tolkien wasn't aiming for the feel of antiquity, but more the mythic Northern European 'Age of Heroes' (5th-6th century CE); hence all those dragons, dwarves, magic swords and rings and horns and whatnot. The idea of shieldmaidens also appears in legendary sagas, hence the inspiration for Eowyn.

And before you accuse me of conflating the real world and Middle-earth, I'm not. I'm trying to demonstrate the bias at work – doubly so in case of Tolkien.

There you go again with the pseudo-intellectual waffle. Biased or not, he wrote what he wrote.

It's in the books, man. That's how they're written. Faramir is the only one who offers some illustration beyond that narrow view by pondering the fate of the dead Southron in Ithilien.

It was Sam who pondered that, not Faramir. Go on, tell me again what's in the books

I'm intrigued now, honestly. How are these understandably old-fashioned attitudes not chauvinist, especially given the letter quoted above?

Personally, I regard it as mild sexism (typical for its time), but which stops short of full-blown male chauvinism. If Tolkien had truly been a chauvinist then there'd surely be no strong female characters in his work.

Are you realizing you are in essence calling cultures permitting female fighters primitive, both in Middle-earth and in the history of Western culture?

Nope. I'm saying that female warriors tend to be a feature of tribal cultures rather than civilisations, historically speaking at least.

Regardless of Tolkiens views, female warriors are quite common in lotro, more so than any other mmo I've played. Yea, it snubs the lore just a little, but sometimes I would imagine Turbine has to, in order to be seen as PC.

Originally Posted by Moejo

Regardless of Tolkiens views, female warriors are quite common in lotro, more so than any other mmo I've played. Yea, it snubs the lore just a little, but sometimes I would imagine Turbine has to, in order to be seen as PC.

It has nothing to do with being PC, and everything to do with dough-rey-mi.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

And the relevance of this is what, exactly? Tolkien wasn't aiming for the feel of antiquity, but more the mythic Northern European 'Age of Heroes' (5th-6th century CE); hence all those dragons, dwarves, magic swords and rings and horns and whatnot. The idea of shieldmaidens also appears in legendary sagas, hence the inspiration for Eowyn.

I did not say that Tolkien was aiming to emulate antiquity, and (as an aside from the discussion, to make that very clear) he drew from a number of sources more than just the Norse sagas, and it was the "heroic spirit" that he was aiming for rather than a second Nordic-mythic culture. The Valarin pantheon resembles the Greek (or more generally, the Indo-European reconstructed one) more than just a little, his original conception of the Elves was of Shakespearean sprites rather than the Norse and Celtic, the Lay of Leithian is derived from the early French romantic tradition with clear Arthurian influences, Túrin and Nienor essentially are pastiches from the Kalevala, the migration of the Hobbit kindreds to the Shire is a transfer into myth of the Germanic tribes settling in England, Bilbo stealing from Smaug's hoard is right out of Beowulf, the similarities between Gondor and the Byzantine Empire are in no way accidental. But that's, as mentioned above, an aside.

The relevance of the examples of female figures and fighters in antiquity in my last post was clearly stated there: Very few of these were recognized in academia (with the exception of the Amazons, which were mostly touted as savage and cruel, as per the male-dominated Ancient Greek culture) prior to the 1970s-1980s. And Tolkien was coming exactly from the same academic environment, being, as you noted, a man of time. His writings did not just suddenly pop out of a vacuum unrelated to the culture he participated in.

There you go again with the pseudo-intellectual waffle.

Kindly stop the dismissive ad-hominem attacks. Or, if my scary big words bother you, there are nice dictionaries on the web.

It was Sam who pondered that, not Faramir. Go on, tell me again what's in the books

Oh no. I had Peter Jackson's movies on the mind. That totally invalidates all I ever wrote in the previous post, and clearly I know nothing. Fine, honey, I'll be a meek little wimmin and go back and cook you a nice roast, how about that. And bring you beer and sandwiches in between popping out a few babies. I'm clearly no good for anything else.

*facepalm*

If you look at that passage, it still very much fits Hobbit mindset of staying home in peace without having any adventures. And I'm not even saying that looking for similarities and differences has to be malicious, but again, the Hobbits don't exist in a cultural vaccuum either.

Personally, I regard it as mild sexism (typical for its time), but which stops short of full-blown male chauvinism. If Tolkien had truly been a chauvinist then there'd surely be no strong female characters in his work.

About as mild as bird's eye chili on the scoville scale, but that's probably a matter of opinion. And you won't hear me argue that he had no strong female characters, but I do doubt that Tolkien had conceived of most of the women in his work of the same manner, unless they were stay-at-home wives (which is no stronger or weaker than anything else, if that was the woman's choice rather than imposed on her). I know you called bull#### on most of my posts in the other thread in General, but I did mention before that most of the notable women in his work were disclaimed somehow for acting their own way. Fëanor disclaimed Nerdanel as not a "true wife" and "cozened by Aulë" for not accompanying him into exile (undoubtedly she was stimulated and fertilized by him *cough*), Aredhel took a poisoned javelin for counteracting her husband, Galadriel, although tremendously wise and powerful, was an exile and needed that final humbling of refusing Frodo's offer of the One Ring before she was permitted to sail, Éowyn, although "capable of military gallantry at a crisis" was written as suicidal and deluded in setting out for battle in the first place. And so on.

Nope. I'm saying that female warriors tend to be a feature of tribal cultures rather than civilisations, historically speaking at least.

Same statement as before, different words. It's misleading, and (aside from female warriors, though I'm sure it plays into your statement) you do realize that "civilization" contains a derogative value-judgement, especially as opposed to "tribal culture", but really from the etymological get-go, don't you? And also, that tribal cultures are, historically speaking, far more frequent than what I assume you mean by "civilization", people with a settled abode who develop the necessary technical standards to maintain that way of living?

I'd like to suggest that we pause a moment to take stock of where we are in this discussion. Is it fair to say that the group is in general agreement that LotR reflects some degree of sexism, and that this is not particularly surprising given the context of Tolkien's life? At this point, are we really just debating the extent to which LotR (and by extension Tolkien himself) exhibits such a bias? If so, I'm not sure that is susceptible to resolution, as the answer tends to be in the nature of opinion and will vary based on the particular perceptions and biases of the posters.

For my part, I think that Tolkien was a creature of his place and time. As such, his view of women was chauvinistic to a degree, and that is reflected in his works. However, this chauvinism can also be explained to by reference to the "realism" (in reference to the world in which Tolkien lived, both contemporary and historical) with which Tolkien took such pains to imbue the world of his creation. [The distinction being that the second factor does not permit a value judgment regarding Tolkien's views, unless we wish to go so far as to demand that he take an affirmative stand against sexism in his writing.] It is difficult for us to say in what measure these two factors are responsible for the bias we see in the text, and of course these factors are themselves interrelated. To that end, however, we do have recourse to Tolkien's letters, and there is material there that clearly (to my mind) demonstrates that Tolkien did personally have some chauvinistic views towards women.

Nevertheless, in the limited circumstances where Tolkien does introduce female characters in his work, they exhibit strong characteristics - both physical and mental - and they accomplish deeds that are equal to or greater than those of the key male figures. This would suggest that although Tolkien was a creature of his place and time, he nevertheless had what appear to be progressive views regarding gender roles (I say that with the caveat that I am not enough of a student of English literature to know how this compares to other writers of his era). On the other hand, a key feature of Tolkien's female characters is their beauty, and by contrast the comeliness of his male heroes is not (as I recall) ever emphasized. Furthermore, Arwen, Luthien, Melian and Eowyn are all defined in a very significant manner by their romantic relations with male characters. In particular, Arwen, Luthien and Melian (plus the minor character Idril Celebrindal) all subordinate an essential part of themselves out of love for their men. Again, by contrast, the male heroes do no such thing (at least as far as I can recall).

Consequently, it is my view that, taken as a whole, Tolkien's writings (and Tolkien himself) do exhibit a bias against women that is not insignificant, but which is tempered to an extent by the presence of several strong female characters in the text. For my part, I generally pardon Tolkien for his bias in light of the circumstances in which he lived ("pardon" in the sense of how I view him as a person). My grandparents exhibited a similar bigotry, and although I never liked it, I did understand why they were that way. Rightly or wrongly, I hold successive generations to different standards.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

Is it fair to say that the group is in general agreement that LotR reflects some degree of sexism, and that this is not particularly surprising given the context of Tolkien's life?

If by 'sexism' you mean merely the view that men and women are different, or a view of the sexes which in any way departs from contemporary US cultural views, then sure. If, however, you mean the view that women are intrinsically inferior, I would have to disagree.

The original question in the thread--whether there were female fighters in Lord of the Rings--was settled a while ago.

+rep for your post. Thank you, that was a well-balanced and nicely thought-out read.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

At this point, are we really just debating the extent to which LotR (and by extension Tolkien himself) exhibits such a bias? If so, I'm not sure that is susceptible to resolution, as the answer tends to be in the nature of opinion and will vary based on the particular perceptions and biases of the posters.

Of course opinion plays a significant part in that - but rather than just touting my bias, I was aiming to establish that LotR by default is showing a handful of select and exceptional characters for the most part from the various royal (or other high-class equivalent) houses of Middle-earth, mostly not the common people, and mostly not common situations, from non-common viewpoints. Even more so in the Silmarillion, which is far less detailed and far more mythically epic. As such, it depends entirely on interpretation whether one chooses to believe female fighters may or may not have existed in what Radhruin called "civilized" people. I'm not asking everyone to embrace my viewpoint, but I'd rather not be attacked and/or dismissed for that opinion in the discussion. /end rant

Nevertheless, in the limited circumstances where Tolkien does introduce female characters in his work, they exhibit strong characteristics - both physical and mental - and they accomplish deeds that are equal to or greater than those of the key male figures. This would suggest that although Tolkien was a creature of his place and time, he nevertheless had what appear to be progressive views regarding gender roles (I say that with the caveat that I am not enough of a student of English literature to know how this compares to other writers of his era).

Progressive insofar that he allows female characters their strengths, but for the most part stays within the typically female-feminine sphere rather than acknowledging female capacity to perform in a traditionally male domain other than in a pinch. Progressive also insofar that he permits discussion, even challenge of gender roles, as long as they are in the end "restored". Éowyn notably does challenge her abandonment while the men ride off to war, rebels... and in the end sees the error of her ways, and, doing a 180° turn, becomes Faramir's wife and a healer rather than (for example) remaining a shieldmaiden to ride with Aragorn and Éomer. Which isn't meant to demean her turnaround, but it's again from male to female domain, so it's still quite heavily gendered and, from a contemporary perspective, very limited, in keeping with the quote from Letter #43 a few posts back.

As literature goes, Victorian literature was for the most part conservative. The Brontë sisters are one exception I can currently think of in handling gender roles in a rather more progressive faction, but even then they published under male aliases and both Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre had a rather mixed-to-negative critical readership response when concerned with the themes of these novels. Modernist literature I think does not necessarily need looking up as that was not the tradition Tolkien aspired to, and even though World War I had a lasting impact on his writing, that is much steeped in romanticism, concise and less ironic than, say, Joyce's Ulysses.

On the other hand, a key feature of Tolkien's female characters is their beauty, and by contrast the comeliness of his male heroes is not (as I recall) ever emphasized. Furthermore, Arwen, Luthien, Melian and Eowyn are all defined in a very significant manner by their romantic relations with male characters. In particular, Arwen, Luthien and Melian (plus the minor character Idril Celebrindal) all subordinate an essential part of themselves out of love for their men. Again, by contrast, the male heroes do no such thing (at least as far as I can recall).

In terms of comeliness, there are a few references to the appearance of male characters that indicate something Tolkien seems to have considered as the pinnacle of beauty/handsomeness, namely an elvish idea of fair skin, grey eyes and (for the most part) dark hair, but I agree that not all characters are held to that standard in favour of realism. Aragorn and Boromir, for example, are both described as weather-beaten due to their travels, Sam (being one of the few more menial characters) has the darker skin (read: tan) that traditional iconography associates with working outside. But these descriptions are definitely not in the same footing as the female descriptions.

The subordination of women in favour of their men does indeed occur. Idril is the rare exception insofar that she marries a mortal and has no option to surrender her immortality in his favour (unlike Lúthien and Arwen); in turn Tuor is "upgraded", made immortal, allowed to live in Valinor, and later counted among the Noldor, or at least that is the suggestion the text makes. Marrying an elf has no negative repercussions to the male characters that are depicted in the narrative (with the possible exception of Imrazôr the Númenorean, whose elvish wife Mithrellas simply vanished).

Consequently, it is my view that, taken as a whole, Tolkien's writings (and Tolkien himself) do exhibit a bias against women that is not insignificant, but which is tempered to an extent by the presence of several strong female characters in the text. For my part, I generally pardon Tolkien for his bias in light of the circumstances in which he lived ("pardon" in the sense of how I view him as a person). My grandparents exhibited a similar bigotry, and although I never liked it, I did understand why they were that way. Rightly or wrongly, I hold successive generations to different standards.

/signed. Understanding is not the same as condoning or accepting without pointing out the flaws in his worldview, and I still do think that while biased, chauvinist and to at least some degree sexist, misogynism is a different thing altogether. "She was (and knew she was) my Lúthien" regarding Edith Tolkien was one of the more profound quotes I recall from the Letters, and in general I do agree that he held women in high regard as long as they fulfilled his view of how a female had to act.

Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie

I do agree that he held women in high regard as long as they fulfilled his view of how a female had to act.

One could safely make the same claim about his view of men.

Originally Posted by Evenprimes

One could safely make the same claim about his view of men.

Yes, of course they had their own codes to act by and deeds to do to legitimize themselves suitable for, for example, the throne of Gondor; the great difference being that men are not by any means a marginalized, restricted group in the books (or, particularly the white Christian demographic, in real life). I can't recall a single instance in the books where any of the male characters were discouraged from riding into battle or heroics on account of being male, but they are not restricted to that role either. Aragorn notably becomes Envinyatar, the Renewer, Elrond is a healer, warrior and loremaster, Faramir also has a penchant for scholarship in addition to being a captain, for just a few quick examples.

Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie

(or, particularly the white Christian demographic, in real life)

Not going there....

Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie

Elrond is a healer, warrior and loremaster

And Galadriel is a warrior, leader, seer (of sorts), member of the high council, etc. If you want to make the case that the race of man in Middle Earth is chauvinist, that's a different argument than the claim that Tolkien was so.

Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie

I did not say that Tolkien was aiming to emulate antiquity, and (as an aside from the discussion, to make that very clear) he drew from a number of sources more than just the Norse sagas, and it was the "heroic spirit" that he was aiming for rather than a second Nordic-mythic culture. The Valarin pantheon resembles the Greek (or more generally, the Indo-European reconstructed one) more than just a little, his original conception of the Elves was of Shakespearean sprites rather than the Norse and Celtic, the Lay of Leithian is derived from the early French romantic tradition with clear Arthurian influences, Túrin and Nienor essentially are pastiches from the Kalevala, the migration of the Hobbit kindreds to the Shire is a transfer into myth of the Germanic tribes settling in England, Bilbo stealing from Smaug's hoard is right out of Beowulf, the similarities between Gondor and the Byzantine Empire are in no way accidental. But that's, as mentioned above, an aside.

The relevance of the examples of female figures and fighters in antiquity in my last post was clearly stated there: Very few of these were recognized in academia (with the exception of the Amazons, which were mostly touted as savage and cruel, as per the male-dominated Ancient Greek culture) prior to the 1970s-1980s. And Tolkien was coming exactly from the same academic environment, being, as you noted, a man of time. His writings did not just suddenly pop out of a vacuum unrelated to the culture he participated in.

What I was getting at was that their relevance is questionable irrespective of advances in our understanding of the past, given that Tolkien wasn't going for the air of antiquity. It's of little use talking about Sarmatians and what-have-you when he was drawing on later traditions and those of specific peoples, at that: the Celts of the British Isles, the assorted Germanic peoples, and the Finns. Those on the fringes of northern Europe, he talks about that specifically.

Kindly stop the dismissive ad-hominem attacks. Or, if my scary big words bother you, there are nice dictionaries on the web.

No dictionary necessary; I simply find that sort of posturing to be both annoying and wholly unnecessary.

Oh no. I had Peter Jackson's movies on the mind. That totally invalidates all I ever wrote in the previous post, and clearly I know nothing. Fine, honey, I'll be a meek little wimmin and go back and cook you a nice roast, how about that. And bring you beer and sandwiches in between popping out a few babies. I'm clearly no good for anything else.

Whatever, it did rather take the edge off your would-be sarcasm.

If you look at that passage, it still very much fits Hobbit mindset of staying home in peace without having any adventures. And I'm not even saying that looking for similarities and differences has to be malicious, but again, the Hobbits don't exist in a cultural vaccuum either.

Of course not, it's well-known what they represent.

About as mild as bird's eye chili on the scoville scale, but that's probably a matter of opinion.

Very much so. It's as nothing compared to the attitudes of some blokes I've been unfortunate enough to encounter.

And you won't hear me argue that he had no strong female characters, but I do doubt that Tolkien had conceived of most of the women in his work of the same manner, unless they were stay-at-home wives (which is no stronger or weaker than anything else, if that was the woman's choice rather than imposed on her). I know you called bull#### on most of my posts in the other thread in General, but I did mention before that most of the notable women in his work were disclaimed somehow for acting their own way. Fëanor disclaimed Nerdanel as not a "true wife" and "cozened by Aulë" for not accompanying him into exile (undoubtedly she was stimulated and fertilized by him *cough*), Aredhel took a poisoned javelin for counteracting her husband, Galadriel, although tremendously wise and powerful, was an exile and needed that final humbling of refusing Frodo's offer of the One Ring before she was permitted to sail, Éowyn, although "capable of military gallantry at a crisis" was written as suicidal and deluded in setting out for battle in the first place. And so on.

Feanor's carping about Nerdanel says more about him than it does about her, I think. Good for her. Aredhel threw herself in front of that dart to save her son from Eol's monstrous attempt on his life, which was doubly tragic because it would have been better for everyone if Maeglin had died that day. As for Galadriel, if you look at it from a Christian perspective (that being what was going on in Tolkien's head), she'd been prideful in coming to Middle-earth in pursuit of power (she'd wanted a realm of her own to rule) and so she had to demonstrate humility in the eyes of God before receiving pardon for her sins, by sacrificing her realm for the sake of the common good. It makes no essential difference that she's female, the test could have been the same for any Elf who'd sought power for its own sake in that way. She was Feanor's niece, after all, and I think that family was rather over-mighty in general.

Same statement as before, different words. It's misleading, and (aside from female warriors, though I'm sure it plays into your statement) you do realize that "civilization" contains a derogative value-judgement, especially as opposed to "tribal culture", but really from the etymological get-go, don't you? And also, that tribal cultures are, historically speaking, far more frequent than what I assume you mean by "civilization", people with a settled abode who develop the necessary technical standards to maintain that way of living?

Same hatchet job from you, it seems. There was no real value judgement there: the point is simply that different societies have different attitudes. Civilisations tend to have things in common, one of which is the ascendancy of male power over female and the resulting limitation of what's seen as the proper role of women. Nothing more than that.

Originally Posted by Evenprimes

If by 'sexism' you mean merely the view that men and women are different, or a view of the sexes which in any way departs from contemporary US cultural views, then sure. If, however, you mean the view that women are intrinsically inferior, I would have to disagree.

Great post, better than alot of the wall-of-text contributions.

This is the same misunderstanding that occurs in...other areas as well. Equal doesn't mean 'the same', it means 'the same value'.

I've been following this thread closely and I still do not think that he was regulating women to some sort of secondary position. Lobelia-Sackville Baggins was subordinate to no one, Galadriel answered to no one, and Ewoyen proved herself on the battlefield by doing what no man could.

The conversation between her and Faramir was awesome, I saw no indication of her being under him. To me, it was an equal partnership, and it was a beautiful one.

I'm just not buying these accusations of him being sexist. I think that some people forget that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

I'm just not buying these accusations of him being sexist. I think that some people forget that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It's a matter of definitions. Because there are no real firm definitions for things like sexism and other 'isms' it's entirely open to abuse. Some of the extremists today could find fault in virtually any book or film you could imagine by simply using absurdly vague and broad definitions. I recall a video I watched on Youtube about some kind of 'committee' or other (in the 1980s I think) responsible for taking out certain 'material' deemed 'not appropriate' for younger school children to read. On hearing that the parents probably naturally thought of violent books, or books with inappropriate words in. That wasn't the case. It was material that didn't quite match up to the States ideological standards - like 'Snow White' for example - that was deemed 'not appropriate'.
In comparison to some of the things these people will find fault with Tolkien's work is the ultimate symbol of oppression.

I'll have to try and find that video on YT. Got no idea what to type in though...

I'd just like to mention, that attitudes about what we call "women's work" haven't always been so negative as they are today. It's only now, when women (with husbands earning enough) have the choice between being homemakers and earning as much or more than their husbands, that unpaid women's work is devalued. If a woman's options in the Middle Ages were usually confined to marriage or the cloister, men's options weren't much better. And no peasant, of course, could afford to be a full-time warrior, unless his wife tended the farm in his absence.

We can't really know whether medieval women felt frustrated by their lack of opportunities. I would imagine if your husband was an illiterate farmer, who trained two weeks a year in case his feudal lord summoned him, then would you really feel discriminated against, or desire to train with him?

Yes, Tolkien was a bit of a chauvinist, and he set Middle-earth in a time like medieval Europe, when women did not normally abandon the farm to go fight.

As a noblewoman, Éowyn obviously had the leisure to learn some weapon-skill. I wonder if she would have kept up with it, after she married Faramir. I can picture her as always taking an interest in such things, even if noblewomen of Gondor typically did not. (Although we don't know that for certain.)

Originally Posted by ferdinanda

As a noblewoman, Éowyn obviously had the leisure to learn some weapon-skill. I wonder if she would have kept up with it, after she married Faramir. I can picture her as always taking an interest in such things, even if noblewomen of Gondor typically did not. (Although we don't know that for certain.)

It's very much implied that she'd had her adventure, had her fill of glory (and seen how hollow it was) and that she was content just to be Mrs. Faramir after that. That was the thing about shieldmaidens: the name says it all, it means they were unmarried. I can imagine her teaching any daughters she might have had how to use a sword, though

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

It's very much implied that she'd had her adventure, had her fill of glory (and seen how hollow it was) and that she was content just to be Mrs. Faramir after that.

I'm pretty sure Farimir also hoping to not take part in future battles as well. He was far too wise to wish for war, and (if we go by the books) seemed to have less of a thirst for glory in combat than Eowyn did. Did she settle down to be Mrs. Farimir or did he settle down to be Mr. Eowyn?

Things I have learned from this thread:

1. The short answer to the original title is: "Yes, there was"
2. Cookies rule!
3. Mmmm cookies...

Originally Posted by bambubambubambu

Things I have learned from this thread:

1. The short answer to the original title is: "Yes, there was"
2. Cookies rule!
3. Mmmm cookies...

Only a Texan(or a Hobbit) could come up with a brilliant but yet simple answer that can close a discussion with extreme prejudice. +1!