Thread: Females in LOTR

Just been thinking about the entire story, having just re-read the books again. In Lotr, women don't appear to take a role in the War of the Ring. With the exceptions of Galadriel and Eowen, they don't do anything that I can notice in the war. (some may also argue Arwen but she doesn't do anything to aid the actual war effort)
So I was wondering (not knowing any of Tolkeins actual history) whether he was anti-feminist? or is there another reason? thank you for any answers

it was written between 1937 and 1949, long before the women's movement. It's just a reflection of the way people thought back then.

There have been several threads about this already (in this forum). Worth looking at.

Galadriel and Eowyn are very major 'exceptions'. Just because half of the fellowship weren't women doesn't mean he was anti-feminist. True, wars were predominantly fought by men but it is not like women were incapable when the time called for it.

I hope I don't offend anyone here, I sincerely don't mean to and I assure you that I'm not an "anti-femenist" at all.

In the books, though, the story largely focuses on a war, and the monarchs/generals therein. The setting is vaguely medieval, so certainly for Men (the race) it is fair to assume all major positions of power (Kings etc) would be held by males, since most of the cultures at the time would have had monarchs who were also soldiers. I don't think it's sexist to assume the majority (if not all) soldiers would have been male at the time. Eowyn's role as a shield maiden is a good exception, I think. She fights because she sees no reason why she shouldn't.

Dwarves were, on the whole, a botched race created by someone who didn't really know what they were doing. The genders of Dwarves aren't particularly clear (at least without doing a lot of lore-mining). Still, though, the only Dwarves encountered by name and presumably gender are warriors and nobles.

The Elves have power that extends beyond physical ability. It makes sense, therefore, that Galadriel is in a position of such influence and authority. The fact she is a female is irrelevent, so to speak. I think the Elves (especially high Elves) will follow the wisest and most fit - for - rule, regardless of gender. The fact that the most learned and "fair" race seems to be the only one to hold a female in such high regard is quite telling. They accept that respect should be granted on ability regardless of gender.

The majority of the characters represent some of the best, most able warriors from their races at the time. I don't think its fair to brand Tolkien a sexist for imagining most of these as men. If you look back over human history, with a few notable exceptions, most of the "legendary" rulers and warriors have been male. How you view this is of course a different matter, but I think given that he based his work on a fair few legends and myths from our world, it seems likely that the male dominance carries over.

In his wider works though, and in times less focused on wars there are quite a few impressive female "lead" characters. Read up on Beren and Luthein, for example, it's a good story.

Originally Posted by Jimeih

True, wars were predominantly fought by men but it is not like women were incapable when the time called for it.

Actually, women weren't involved in wars, insofar as women being part of what one would call 'regular' armies. Obviously when they were on the defensive women fought for their lives like men, but in the far ago times when LOTRO is set (if you accept JRRT's concept of how his history relates to the 'real world') then females on the field of battle were pretty much unheard of; in Western Europe at least, where Middle-Earth is located.

So, it's entirely right that there are no women in JRRT's writings involved in the wars of the time, with the exception of those already mentioned and one or two in The Silmarillion who were for example leaders of small bands of humans.

Sadly, Political Correctness now blinds some to the realities of times gone and causes condemnation of people (or a specific man in this case) simply because modern society no longer accepts some concepts: not always for the better.

Originally Posted by Catisa

it was written between 1937 and 1949, long before the women's movement. It's just a reflection of the way people thought back then.

Not 'long before the women's movement' in fact. Suffragettes were not even the beginning, and they were around at the turn of the century (19th/20th)! Yes, societal norms have changed during the 20th century, granted. But the roots of that didn't suddenly emerge somewhere into the 1950s, they go back far longer.

What is however true about Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is that we are focused on the inevitable slide into war and on the fellowship, not on the normal lives of the races of Middle Earth. Therefore we are getting a selective snapshot of the world that Tolkien imagined and wrote about, not the whole picture. That gets more flesh to its bones in the Silmarillion than in Lord of the Rings.

Red

When fighting is done with swords, spears, and bows, it makes sense for women to take a back seat. Those are weapons that require physical strength, and men are simply bigger and stronger than women. In societies with low populations, it makes sense to protect women since they are essential for reproduction (even though polygamy was unheard of among the free people). Those two factors, protecting the future mothers, and accounting for sexual dimorphism, make the modern notion of equality anachronistic in LotR.

In the Silmarillion, where "magic" is a bigger factor, female characters played a bigger role. Melian kept Thingol's realm secure, her daughter defeated Sauron to rescue Beren, and even the lesser female characters tend to play a bigger role than in the LotR. If feminism is defined by women achieving their potential, then Tolkien was a feminist. If feminism is defined as women being just like men, then Tolkien certainly was not.

Originally Posted by Wiedman

When fighting is done with swords, spears, and bows, it makes sense for women to take a back seat. Those are weapons that require physical strength, and men are simply bigger and stronger than women. In societies with low populations, it makes sense to protect women since they are essential for reproduction (even though polygamy was unheard of among the free people). Those two factors, protecting the future mothers, and accounting for sexual dimorphism, make the modern notion of equality anachronistic in LotR.

In the Silmarillion, where "magic" is a bigger factor, female characters played a bigger role. Melian kept Thingol's realm secure, her daughter defeated Sauron to rescue Beren, and even the lesser female characters tend to play a bigger role than in the LotR. If feminism is defined by women achieving their potential, then Tolkien was a feminist. If feminism is defined as women being just like men, then Tolkien certainly was not.

Hear, hear.

Unfortunately, modern feminism does tend to be defined by women becoming just like men, which is why I am not a feminist despite being quite an independently minded woman. I never want women to be just like men and I certainly don't want female characters to be just like male characters. Tolkien did it right, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

Hear, hear.

Unfortunately, modern feminism does tend to be defined by women becoming just like men, which is why I am not a feminist despite being quite an independently minded woman. I never want women to be just like men and I certainly don't want female characters to be just like male characters. Tolkien did it right, in my opinion.

I think the notion that feminism is defined as women wanting to be "just like men" is a generalization that has arisen from a more extreme and vocal part of that movement. Every belief system has followers who take its ideas to varying lengths, and while there are certainly feminists whose views are distressingly absolute and rigid, there are a great many who embrace and celebrate our differences while advocating for the basics of respect and the ability to make our own choices in life.

But back on the topic of Tolkien's writing, I always felt that he valued women highly. He obviously put care into the development of his female characters, even when they played minor roles, and those that played more significant parts in history were unique and powerful and beautiful. As mentioned above, Tolkien was not writing about the war from the perspective of those staying behind in their communities, but from the perspectives of the leaders and those on the front lines, which to be fitting with ancient history, would in most cases be men. He inserted wonderfully vibrant female characters where appropriate, but this is a story focused on the world of men, and there isn't a thing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by Geindir

(some may also argue Arwen but she doesn't do anything to aid the actual war effort)

That's not quite accurate. Arwen made Aragorn's banner.

There were women in the House of Healing in Minas Tirith, most notably the loquacious Ioreth, who certainly played a role in the war, even if it was as non-combatants.

Originally Posted by Geindir

Just been thinking about the entire story, having just re-read the books again. In Lotr, women don't appear to take a role in the War of the Ring. With the exceptions of Galadriel and Eowen, they don't do anything that I can notice in the war. (some may also argue Arwen but she doesn't do anything to aid the actual war effort)
So I was wondering (not knowing any of Tolkeins actual history) whether he was anti-feminist? or is there another reason? thank you for any answers

The main plot just happened to be mostly males. It just turned out that way. I cannot see Tolkien having a grudge against women and deliberately keeping them out of the main story line.

Just about every war in history has been men and it's often been said that he got his ideas from past mythology.

Also, women are just not physically strong enough to wear armour and a sword. Eowen, being from Rohan, most probably wore light armour. Back in those days women took care of the fort while the men duked it out.

To make a long story short, back in those days men duked it out and the women took care of the homestead.

Originally Posted by oldbadgerbrock

That's not quite accurate. Arwen made Aragorn's banner.
.

I think that is pretty important.

^^Feminism is about equality of the sexes and self-determination of gender. But not to send women into battle is a decision based purely on necessity or male chauvinism.

Feminism and the ideas you present above are complete opposites. So much for "thinking about your words".

I get really tired of seeing people accuse Tolkien of being a male chauvinist or a racist because his books don't fit within today's hyper sensitive politically correct world.

There is a thread somewhere buried deep in this sub forum accusing Tolkien of being racist because he used the word "swarthy". The OP wanted Turbine to take that word out of the npc dialogue.

The books were made over 50 years ago. It was a different era with different ideals. There was a thread a week ago somewhere asking for more male bandits because there were too many female bandits outside of Bree.

This application of modern standards to fiction written generations earlier annoys me. There are people who want to rewrite Huckleberry Finn because the eponymous hero's sidekick Jim's nickname can't even be said in a literature class, or this forum, for that matter, without inviting opprobrium. It's not restricted to this generation -- Joseph Smith was so offended by parts of the Bible that he rewrote all the bits that annoyed him -- e.g. the story of Lot offering his daughters to the crowd to do whatever they pleased with them. (No, I don't mean the Book of Mormon -- the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the rights to the rewritten Bible, and the Salt Lake lot doesn't treat it as gospel. Officially.)

In any case, back on topic, as always when this one comes up I'll point out Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, one of the few in the Shire who resisted the takeover. Armed and dangerous... with her trusty umbrella!

Something I would recommend checking out for those who are interested in this whole debate is to read the Aldarion and Erendis section of Unfinished Tales. It relates quite a bit to women and their 'place' within Middle-earth. I was surprised at some of the language used within that tale actually.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

The books were made over 50 years ago. It was a different era with different ideals.

And it represents an era far older. One mustn't confuse the views expressed by characters in a novel for those held by its author.

Originally Posted by oldbadgerbrock

And it represents an era far older. One mustn't confuse the views expressed by characters in a novel for those held by its author.

Exactly this.

Tolkien's works are realistic to the fantasy setting he creates, the people and their societies are heavily influenced by medieval Europe, which was very much male dominated. He isn't being prejudiced or chauvinistic by sticking to good writing principles.

Although everyone pays attention to Eowyn's incognito war effort (and why not? she kills the Witch King after all!) I think to answer this question it's important to pay attention to what she (and others) say about herself. She actually presents a full feminist argument in defense of her desire to ride to war with Aragorn, and Gandalf (who wasn't even there) gives the same explanation later to Eomer. I'll just excerpt a few relevant passages here.

Two caveats first:
- I'm using the definition of feminism here that argues that women should have self-determination in their pursuits, at least to some degree, rather than having their paths chosen by the men who have authority over them. This doesn't necessarily mean there should be equal numbers of women as men in a war effort. You can see Eowyn claims self-determination in these passages (as well as by riding). She exercises it as well in accepting Faramir, even though in doing so she is leaving behind the life of war, as she says ("The Steward and the King").
- Since Eowyn is also in love with (or if you prefer, infatuated with) Aragorn, and they both know it, there's a subtext to her conversation with him that complicates the conversation. She says these things about self-determination, but there's a lot she's not saying. I'm ignoring that, because it's impossible to know what she would have said if she had spoken so openly to Eomer, for example, or to Gandalf, and because Gandalf gives a similar summary later without relating it to Aragorn. You could decide the subtext makes it impossible to take these statements at face value. I'm just pointing the statements out because they're relevant (indeed, the most relevant I know of) to deciding what role feminism plays in Tolkien's work.

From "The Passing of the Grey Company," The Return of the King:
1. "'Lord,' she said, 'if you must go, then let me ride in your following. For I am weary of skulking in the hills, and wish to face peril and battle.'"
2. "'But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?'"
3. "'Shall I always be left behind when the Riders depart, to mind the house while they win renown, and find food and beds when they return?'"
4. "'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.'"
5. "'[I fear] A cage,' she said. 'To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire."

4, especially, is a classic feminist statement. Of course, Tolkien's characters don't necessarily speak for Tolkien, but the treatment of Eowyn is at least sympathetic, which I think is evident from what Gandalf says below.

From "The Houses of Healing," The Return of the King:
6. (To Eomer) "'My friend,' said Gandalf, 'you had horses, and deeds of arms, and the free fields; but she, born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours. Yet she was doomed to wait upon an old man, whom she loved as a father, and watch him falling into a mean dishonoured dotage; and her part seemed to her more ignoble than that of the staff he leaned on.'"
7. "Then Eomer was silent, and looked on his sister, as if pondering anew all the days of their past life together."

Hope this is helpful for the discussion.

Originally Posted by iorviel

[...] 4, especially, is a classic feminist statement. Of course, Tolkien's characters don't necessarily speak for Tolkien, but the treatment of Eowyn is at least sympathetic, which I think is evident from what Gandalf says below.

From "The Houses of Healing," The Return of the King:
6. (To Eomer) "'My friend,' said Gandalf, 'you had horses, and deeds of arms, and the free fields; but she, born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours. Yet she was doomed to wait upon an old man, whom she loved as a father, and watch him falling into a mean dishonoured dotage; and her part seemed to her more ignoble than that of the staff he leaned on.'"
7. "Then Eomer was silent, and looked on his sister, as if pondering anew all the days of their past life together."

Hope this is helpful for the discussion.

Instant +rep, thank you for this. I'm one of those people who think that Tolkien's ideological background doesn't quite permit Éowyn's feminist statements here to be taken at face value, after his ideas that women require male "fertilization" to be capable of anything of note, and his admitted disdain of feminism - but the author is dead, both literally and figuratively speaking, and I do love the notion that this can be read from the text, whether or not it's what Tolkien intended.

Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie

Instant +rep, thank you for this. I'm one of those people who think that Tolkien's ideological background doesn't quite permit Éowyn's feminist statements here to be taken at face value, after his ideas that women require male "fertilization" to be capable of anything of note, and his admitted disdain of feminism - but the author is dead, both literally and figuratively speaking, and I do love the notion that this can be read from the text, whether or not it's what Tolkien intended.

Thank you! I agree with this, and the question is complicated further by the facts that "feminism" predates Tolkien by generations and (under some forms) would have probably seemed totally unremarkable to him, and on the other hand that its definition has changed in various ways since he died. The "self-determination" definition is one he might have accepted, but he also might not have considered it to be feminism. That's why I'd rather talk about the texts than about his relationship to a set of ideas that may or may not mean the same thing to us that it did to him.

Originally Posted by Curandhras

The Elves have power that extends beyond physical ability. It makes sense, therefore, that Galadriel is in a position of such influence and authority. The fact she is a female is irrelevent, so to speak. I think the Elves (especially high Elves) will follow the wisest and most fit - for - rule, regardless of gender. The fact that the most learned and "fair" race seems to be the only one to hold a female in such high regard is quite telling. They accept that respect should be granted on ability regardless of gender.

I think Galadriel is a very notable character for this discussion and for the lore. She's Noldor. She is the lynchpin for pretty much the difference between the far west and middle earth itself. She extends back to the days of the shining trees. She remembers the first dark lord. Her power, even waning as it is during the war of the ring, is substantial. She connects to the primeval powerful forces of the valar and the maia. Much of what she knows was taught to her by the forces that helped shape the creation of middle earth itself.

So I guess my opinion on this topic is I don't think Tolkien was anti-woman because he didn't have Rosie Cotton following the Hobbits into Mordor or something like that.

That he has Galadriel -- and Eowyn -- demonstrates that he envisioned a world where women participated in the war as key players. And as has been pointed out a zillion times, women didn't usually get pressed into the infantry service of armed conflict during the time when Tolkien wrote this stuff. They still don't.