Thread: no female fighters in LotR?

Athena, the Goddess of Home & Hearth, who could rout him every single time.

This may seem a really small matter but Athena was the godess of wisdom and battle strategy, Hestia was the godess of hearth and home and usually not violent.

While names like Boadicea, Jean d'Arc, and even the Iron Lady come to mind as I read this post I'm sort of taken aback by its implication.

So we have now relegated women's rights to include dying for God and country? Why is it that we should feel in order for women to have equal rights with men they have to be more like men? Why can't women's rights just be about freeing up a woman to be herself and not someone else's object?

Eowyn was asked to remain behind to rule in her uncle's stead should anything happen to him or his heirs. Women who rule kingdoms are fighters when you consider what they have at their disposal: Thatcher's flotilla that went to the Faulkland Islands, Elizabeth I whose navy dispatched the Spanish armada are two that come to mind.

By the way women at least here in America are still forbad from combat roles. And the day women are required to register with their selective service upon reaching their 18th birthday is the day I take the feminist movement and its plethora of organizations seriously. I mean, if we want equal rights for women to include fighting shouldn't we start there?

And here I thought the thread had gone to sleep. It was so nice to re-read the discussion with Radhruin and some others on ignore. Can't engage in discussion with people who continue to intentionally misunderstand you. But oh well.

Originally Posted by Noridan

So we have now relegated women's rights to include dying for God and country? Why is it that we should feel in order for women to have equal rights with men they have to be more like men? Why can't women's rights just be about freeing up a woman to be herself and not someone else's object?

Hang on, what about women's rights being about equal opportunity? It's not about women becoming more like men, it's about women having the same rights and privileges men do no matter what - it doesn't matter if we're talking about a frilly pink girly girl or a woman in frontline combat, and I'm really not sure how that counts as a relegation. It was the topic of discussion since that was what the initial question was about. But at any rate, there is no hard-and-fast rule what it is like for a woman to "be herself", and no matter what she choses, it is no basis or reason for objectification from anyone.

I've always thought that the inspiration for Eowyn came from the joke itself -- "No man can kill me!" "Yeah? Well suck on <this>!" Once Tolkien thought of this exchange, my guess is that Eowyn's back-history got grafted in naturally -- rather like Christian Morgenstern's Aesthetic Weasel that sat on an easel in a patch of teazle. Why? For the sake of the rhyme.

And the joke itself? Perhaps inspired by MacBeth, whose own prophecy was that he would be killed by no man of woman born. Since the Caesarian trick was already taken, Tolkien had another arrow to his bow.

No "female fighters in LotR" thread would be complete without a respectful bow to Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who attacked the leader of the ruffians with her umbrella and was shut up in the Lockholes for it.

Originally Posted by Tuco

No "female fighters in LotR" thread would be complete without a respectful bow to Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who attacked the leader of the ruffians with her umbrella and was shut up in the Lockholes for it.

Heehee! I love that part! Lobelia may have been annoyingly obnoxious most of the time, but I can't help but cheer every time I read that scene!

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

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.

Been busy with school and grinding out toons, but just wanted to respond to this. Actually anytime you enter into an argument you engage in "philosophy." A rational argument has the same rules everywhere. Belittling my posture won't really help your point along. It was not at all literarily necessary. This is a settled point for me. I think your stubborness on this issue reveals many of your preconceptions. You've failed to address any of the primary points I've brought up. For instance, why is it so wrong for her to become Mrs. Faramir, but not for Faramir to become Mr. Eowyn? Companionship is a need for both sexes, not a means of subjugation. Your belief that she was willing to give up all adventure to "settle down" is just ad hoc and not at all substantiated by the text. Anyway, I'm off again to get my toons tuned, and feel that this won't be very constructive because you haven't engaged what's important.

Originally Posted by Doulos

Been busy with school and grinding out toons, but just wanted to respond to this. Actually anytime you enter into an argument you engage in "philosophy." A rational argument has the same rules everywhere. Belittling my posture won't really help your point along. It was not at all literarily necessary. This is a settled point for me.

The point I was making was one of dramatic necessity, not logical necessity and that was why I objected. She had to be capable of presenting a credible threat to the Witch-king in order for it to be a believable outcome that she could defeat him.

I think your stubborness on this issue reveals many of your preconceptions. You've failed to address any of the primary points I've brought up. For instance, why is it so wrong for her to become Mrs. Faramir, but not for Faramir to become Mr. Eowyn? Companionship is a need for both sexes, not a means of subjugation. Your belief that she was willing to give up all adventure to "settle down" is just ad hoc and not at all substantiated by the text. Anyway, I'm off again to get my toons tuned, and feel that this won't be very constructive because you haven't engaged what's important.

Given the setting, she'd very much become "Mrs Faramir". Suggesting otherwise flies in the face of how Tolkien writes (the limited role women have in general), the sort of society she's part of (highly traditional), not to mention what being a 'shieldmaiden' actually meant (that such female warriors were unmarried). Once married, her role would become what would be traditional for aristocratic women in such a society (running the household and playing the role of gracious hostess to guests, on top of being a supportive wife and in due course, a mother). Now, we can be sure Faramir was a lovely guy and all that but that doesn't mean that loose talk about her going off on more adventures is worth a damn. She's had her adventure and nearly died in the process, and I would very much imagine that she'd had her fill of glory (having done a deed worthy of a saga, something people would doubtless compose songs about) and would have been perfectly happy to settle down with Faramir. I also think that she'd have belatedly realised quite what her father had been trying to spare her from when he'd told her to go back to Edoras.

To be honest, if you imagine otherwise then I think you're looking at this as if it were the average modern fantasy, with a clumsy grafting of modern attitudes onto supposedly ancient times. Not to mention neglecting to consider Eowyn's implied state of mind - not merely that she'd been hungry for glory but that she'd wanted to die a warrior's death, sword in hand, rather than waiting patiently at Edoras for the end to come after all was already lost. She'd got that out of her system, by the end. She had nothing left to prove, there.

Originally Posted by Tuco

I've always thought that the inspiration for Eowyn came from the joke itself -- "No man can kill me!" "Yeah? Well suck on <this>!" Once Tolkien thought of this exchange, my guess is that Eowyn's back-history got grafted in naturally -- rather like Christian Morgenstern's Aesthetic Weasel that sat on an easel in a patch of teazle. Why? For the sake of the rhyme.

And the joke itself? Perhaps inspired by MacBeth, whose own prophecy was that he would be killed by no man of woman born. Since the Caesarian trick was already taken, Tolkien had another arrow to his bow.

No "female fighters in LotR" thread would be complete without a respectful bow to Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who attacked the leader of the ruffians with her umbrella and was shut up in the Lockholes for it.

Actually, there's a good bit of speculation that Eowyn did not kill the Witch-King, but Merry did. I find myself falling into agreement, although there does seem to be room for interpretation. At the very least, Eowyn was not necessary, as in theory a hobbit, dwarf, or possibly elf(if I recall the prophecy correctly) could have suited equally.

Also, +1 on the Lobelia sentiment.

Originally Posted by scaliper

Actually, there's a good bit of speculation that Eowyn did not kill the Witch-King, but Merry did.

Seems like idle speculation, since it's obvious in the text that it was she who struck the killing blow. Merry's role was to save her life and make it possible for her to strike that blow. He'd crippled the Witch-king but not killed him - it's described in those terms, that Merry's sword had pierced the sinew behind the Witch-king's knee. Anything more than that would have been absurd, taking hobbits into Mary Sue territory. Tolkien's careful to keep a lid on that.

Originally Posted by ferdinanda

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.

Hm, I wouldn't call him necessarily that. He did hold his mother high in value even after death, and what she did with him while she was alive had a high impact all through his life. And he would wait for Edith for years even they weren't allowed to meet each other.

But when he got married with her he liked to keep his male surrounded and female surrounded world apart. Away from home he was surrounded by his male friends, and it annoyed Edith that she wasn't a part of that life, even though at home she got a lot of his attention.

In their final years they moved in a place where Edith wanted to be, though Tolkien didn't mind it quite as much. But he did it for her, to repay her the loneliness she once had when he spent all his days in Oxford.

I would rather call it double life than chauvinism.