Tolkien looking down on women?

[Noble Elf Lord]

Why there were no female characters in the Fellowship? And for the whole story, I think I´ll remember four woman "heroes": Lady Galadriel, Lady Arwen, Lady Eowyn and the woman in the Houses of Healing. Why? :mad: :confused: Surely, they could have added some female wisdom and logic, which are beyond us men. :o :D I can´t think of any argument with which to defend this without offending women and being a chauvinist. Then again, it´s 22.34 and I´m tired. Thoughts? :cool:

[elvensmith]

Ur right! Thats why i decided to make up my own woman character and write Tolkien stories about her... its really fun. U should visit my thread: Make up ur own character. u can find it next to movies ( that was a mistake) in the tread section. Hope u visit. :)

[Earniel]

I've never found it bothersome that there wasn't a single woman in the Fellowship itself. Why should there have been? There were several female characters in the books outside the Fellowship, who've gotten their share of the lime-light.

No, I don't think you can accuse Tolkien of looking down on women, in fact I'd almost say he looked up to them. Nearly all the women are beautiful, strong in character, and some even powerful, and every single one of them on the good side.

[BeardofPants]

Tolkien was a product of the times. Not that the times have changed much. If we needed to save the world from a megalomaniac and a ring, I'm sure we'd still send an all-male crew.

[Earniel]

Hm, maybe. I'm thinking if we needed to rid the world of malvolent jewellery again, we probably send the politically correct team: a hero, a woman, somebody black, somebody muslim, somebody homosexual, and a few other depending on our target group.

[Noble Elf Lord]

Ur right! Thats why i decided to make up my own woman character and write Tolkien stories about her... its really fun. U should visit my thread: Make up ur own character. u can find it next to movies ( that was a mistake) in the tread section. Hope u visit. :)

I´ll visit your thread for sure. :D Though I prefer not to make Tolkien stories myself, don´t think they´ll be good enough to honor Professor Tolkien. But my own book is going strong. :) ;)

[Butterbeer]

Hm, maybe. I'm thinking if we needed to rid the world of malvolent jewellery again, we probably send the politically correct team: a hero, a woman, somebody black, somebody muslim, somebody homosexual, and a few other depending on our target group.


i'd be tempted to send in the elite Muppet SAS "Band" - they have a proven track record.

Of course this may be discriminatory against the Fraggle freedom group or possibly infringe on the rights of the tele-tubbies.

.......


To be quite frank , Noble elf lord, i am constantly flabhergasted at JRR's total lack of a lesbian character - do you think this also was a deliberate stance?

I look forward to your views.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

i'd be tempted to send in the elite Muppet SAS "Band" - they have a proven track record.

Of course this may be discriminatory against the Fraggle freedom group or possibly infringe on the rights of the tele-tubbies.

.......


To be quite frank , Noble elf lord, i am constantly flabhergasted at JRR's total lack of a lesbian character - do you think this also was a deliberate stance?

I look forward to your views.Women weren't relevant to J.R.R.
The Important "work world" he lived in was essentially a medieval and monastic one.Women weren't even cleaning the rooms. And the impact of the Great Wars on gender in British society can't possibly be overstated. Men worked to protect the women and children they might not even see again. I've always thought the most vivid depiction of women in the LOTR was the story of the Entwives. Surely that reflects a loss he perceived in his universe that was characterized as 'beyond human aid" in a sense. It's just a foreshadowing to all the losses that concern the characters, as innocence passes away (or takes ship at the Grey Havens) the loss that's felt most keenly is the loss of the women.

It's not great for role models, but it never struck me as 'disrespectful.", only somewhat naive, in a way.

[elvensmith]

I don't care what most of u say, but i totally believe that Tolkien was a little sexist. You say that he wasn't, but his only important female characters were also victims... and there were only about 4 of them. If he truly believed women were as good as men, then he'd have included one in the Company. Also, I think he contributed to this fact by not clearly including a woman dwarf... i mean, do they even exist.

[Earniel]

I don't care what most of u say [..]
Mkay, but why bother asking our opinions then? :p

Oh hang on, nevermind, I'm obviously confusing people. :rolleyes:

[Pytt]

Maybe the bit about dwarf females is that it should continue to be somewhat of a mystery if dwarfs really is formed in stone, and leaps out? A female dwarf would ruin some of the dwarfish fun for me at least.

Good point, Earniel ;)

[Fohel]

I've never found it bothersome that there wasn't a single woman in the Fellowship itself. Why should there have been? There were several female characters in the books outside the Fellowship, who've gotten their share of the lime-light.

No, I don't think you can accuse Tolkien of looking down on women, in fact I'd almost say he looked up to them. Nearly all the women are beautiful, strong in character, and some even powerful, and every single one of them on the good side.

Your right. The book is set in a time when nearly all the warriors were male. Tolkien is therfore just reflecting a time where woman did tend to be looked down apon. Tolkien clearly looks up to woman. Who killed the Witch King Eowen. This clearly shows that woman are just as brave as men but they just didn't get the chance to show their valour.

What about Gladriel? She is one of the most powerful people on Middle Earth. An author which creates characters like this is unlikely to look down on woman.

[Gordis]

And for the whole story, I think I´ll remember four woman "heroes": Lady Galadriel, Lady Arwen, Lady Eowyn and the woman in the Houses of Healing.
There were also Rosie Cotton and Shelob :D

[Acalewia]

The women in Middle Earth were strong women with unfailing hearts. Eowyn could have did what her uncle said. If not that, she could have ran when faced with the WitchKing. IMO, Eowyn is the strongest character in the book. I have always wondered why Tolkien didn't include at least one woman in the Fellowship, but they were helped along the way by mostly women.

[Gordis]

The women in Middle Earth were strong women with unfailing hearts. Eowyn could have did what her uncle said. If not that, she could have ran when faced with the WitchKing. IMO, Eowyn is the strongest character in the book.
Eowyn's choice to abandon her duties and follow the army to seek glorious death was weakness, not strength.
She was appointed by the King to lead and guard the remaining people of Rohan - a position of trust and honor. Like a lovesick teenager, instead of doing her duty, she chose suicide. A glorious suicide- in the manner of her brave people, but suicide nonetheless. That is why she was not afraid of the Witch-King - not because she was so very brave, but because she had no hope.
She abandoned her post in wartime. Anyone but her would have been punished. She had the incredible luck to kill the Nazgul Lord, thus her treason was not taken note of. The facts that she was the new king's sister and was severely wounded also helped.
I think she displayed strength of character only when she managed to overcome grief and Shadow and seek a new life. Faramir helped in that.

[Lotesse]

Tolkien looking down on women? No way. Hell no, he didn't look down upon women, but to me it has always seemed very obvious that this great literary genius we love and respect so much just didn't know women, only in a fantasy romantic sense, in his own beautiful mind, but certanly he did not write about them with the kind of pure, instinctual knowledge that he did about all of his brilliantly conceived male characters.

Tolkien was a man's man. I mean, he seemed creatively either careful or completely unrealistic about how he wrote about women, and how he designed his female-gendered characters. Because he may not have figured out how to know women on the LEVEL in his own real-life very well, by this lack of life-experience he both limited the quantity of great female characters in his epic story and then gave the ones he did create and did include in the Rings drama a fantastic and romantic quality. Each one of the female heroines or major players in LotR is sort of too-perfectly feminine, or larger-than-life (Galadriel, Rosie Gamgee, Arwen, Eowyn). Or fatalistic, or impossibly and slavishly romantic, or like Gordis was saying about Eowyn.

And yeah, speaking of drarven women, where are all the female dwarves? I think Tolkien didn't know women as he did men in real life, and this lack of knowledge and experience with his opposite sex endedup being carried through into his art. It doesn't matter to ME, I love his art anyways.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I agree with Lotesse that Tolkien's view of women is more naive than negative. But remember, LOTR owes more to medieval romances (in the literary term) than to any other form. It follows those conventions pretty closely, with the hobbits in a sort of "Piers Plowman" role.

That's the basis for a disagreement with Gordis. On the face of it (and personally) I agree completely about his description of Eowyn's behavior. In modern terms, she "abandoned her post." But Eowyn isn't a modern character, and Tolkien didn't see her in modern terms. She's clearly Elaine to Aragorn's Lancelot, and pining and fantasy is part of her responsibility. It's actually one of the few moments when Tolkien departs from the strict formula that he permits Eowyn and Faramir a happy ending.

[Jon S.]

We need to remember our historical contexts. Some here appear to be concluding that because Tolkien's romanticized and limited view of women would be deemed negative in much of today's Western world, therefore Tolkien looked down on women. He absolutely did not. He looked up to them but did so through the spectacle of his upbringing and time.

Just as some sages interpret the verse, "Noah was blameless in his age" (Genesis 6:9), to mean, "Noah was blameless only in his age; in other ages, he would not have been considered righteous" (R. Jochanan), so I would say, Tolkien looked up to women in his age; in other ages, he would not have been deemed to look up to them.

But Tolkien did not live in those ages, he lived in his age. So cut the good professor some slack, folks!

[brownjenkins]

There are few characters, male or female, more mentally strong than Luthien, so I don't know if I agree. If you look at the entirety of Tolkien's work, I'd say that females play a surprisingly strong role in many places given Tolkien's time (the female Valar, Ungoliant, Galadriel, Eowyn).

As far as the fellowship went, Sauron and the Ring was a problem caused by males (Sauron, Manwe for not finishing the job at the end of the First Age, Isildur for not finishing the job at the end of the Second Age, etc.). Why should the females be expected to save their butts? :D

[Noble Elf Lord]

Great points, everyone. I think that the views of Lotesse and Jon S. are especially good when combined. :confused: :D But surely Tolkien could have fixed his inknowledge by talking to women he knew about the female characters of the book? As for me, in my book the main character is a girl(or woman, whatever way you want) who is about 18 -19 years old, so I´ll have to ask the girls in my class about the female way of thinking. Otherwise, with my masculin way of thinking, she´ll propably end up being less smart than she ought to be. :o :D :) And Butterbeer, I think that the lack of a lesbian charcter was half-deliberate - it possibly didn´t even cross his mind to add the theme into the book. I won´t, anyway. And I´ve never liked analyzing any story - I read them purely because I enjoy dwelling in those worlds and great stories. Perhaps naive but also an innocent way of thinking. :) :cool: :rolleyes: ;)

[Acalewia]

There are few characters, male or female, more mentally strong than Luthien, so I don't know if I agree. If you look at the entirety of Tolkien's work, I'd say that females play a surprisingly strong role in many places given Tolkien's time (the female Valar, Ungoliant, Galadriel, Eowyn).

As far as the fellowship went, Sauron and the Ring was a problem caused by males (Sauron, Manwe for not finishing the job at the end of the First Age, Isildur for not finishing the job at the end of the Second Age, etc.). Why should the females be expected to save their butts? :D
I could make a comment here, but that would only start a gender debate. But I have to agree with you. Why should the females save the males' butts for their screwups?

[Wayfarer]

There's nothing more ridiculous than to see people pontificate (in the absence of any evidence, mind you) about the feelings and motivations of people who quite possibly died before they were born.

J.R.R. Tolkein was born in 1892, he met his future wife around 1908 (when he was 16), was married to her in 1916 (when he was 21), and that same year went away to fight in World War One. The Hobbit was published in 1937, at which point he had been married for 20 years, and the first books of The Lord of the Rings were not published until 1954 after he had been with Edith for almost 40 years.

Edith died in 1971 after they had been married for 55 years, and J.R.R. died two years later in 1973. They were buried in the same grave, carved at his request with 'Beren' and 'Lúthien' by each of their names on the tombstone.

All of this is simple historical fact.

You will excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that an author was 'disrepectful' or 'naive' in writing characters who were a tribute to someone who he loved. Lúthien was a character inspired by his own wife, he says in a letter to his son that"[Edith] was (and knew she was) my Lúthien." If the character of Lúthien (or Arwen, her descendant) was idealized and romantic, it is because that's how he felt about her. He was in love.

J.R.R.T. was married and in love for longer than I have been alive, for longer than my parents have been alive. Any criticisms I could ever bring against him in this regard would be nothing more than the ignorant speculations of callow youth.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

There's nothing more ridiculous than to see people pontificate (in the absence of any evidence, mind you) about the feelings and motivations of people who quite possibly died before they were born.

J.R.R. Tolkein was born in 1892, he met his future wife around 1908 (when he was 16), was married to her in 1916 (when he was 21), and that same year went away to fight in World War One. The Hobbit was published in 1937, at which point he had been married for 20 years, and the first books of The Lord of the Rings were not published until 1954 after he had been with Edith for almost 40 years.

Edith died in 1971 after they had been married for 55 years, and J.R.R. died two years later in 1973. They were buried in the same grave, carved at his request with 'Beren' and 'Lúthien' by each of their names on the tombstone.

All of this is simple historical fact.

You will excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that an author was 'disrepectful' or 'naive' in writing characters who were a tribute to someone who he loved. Lúthien was a character inspired by his own wife, he says in a letter to his son that"[Edith] was (and knew she was) my Lúthien." If the character of Lúthien (or Arwen, her descendant) was idealized and romantic, it is because that's how he felt about her. He was in love.

J.R.R.T. was married and in love for longer than I have been alive, for longer than my parents have been alive. Any criticisms I could ever bring against him in this regard would be nothing more than the ignorant speculations of callow youth.Oh, please. What would be more naive than love? And why should I care how old someone was? There's no evidence to suggest that either intelligence, or insight, grows with age. Sadly for those of us who have age to recommend us. ;)

Get off your high horse. This is a reasonable question and debate, conducted reasonably, until its very existence offends thee. :rolleyes:

[Butterbeer]

Wayfarer makes a good point, and makes it well.

and although there are some decent posts, for me the original premise is highly wishy-washy both in concept and in direction.

To jump from the book as written to assertions, that seem at best sketchy, that JRR knew not women or that he had this, that or the other mindset, or that as a man of his time he is therefore tied to it, or that he was somehow a mysoginist, or that some post 21st century revisionist Dogma should now be retrospectivley applied to either the work or it's author ...

well...

and DukeS, unless you are lady Godiva, i'd dismount your stallion there ;)


Best BB :)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Wayfarer makes a good point, and makes it well.

and although there are some decent posts, for me the original premise is highly wishy-washy both in concept and in direction.

To jump from the book as written to assertions, that seem at best sketchy, that JRR knew not women or that he had this, that or the other mindset, or that as a man of his time he is therefore tied to it, or that he was somehow a mysoginist, or that some post 21st century revisionist Dogma should now be retrospectivley applied to either the work or it's author ...

well...

and DukeS, unless you are lady Godiva, i'd dismount your stallion there ;)


Best BB :)Remaining mounted. Someone has to save those poor peasants. ;)

What unsketchy assertions would you like, oh seldom posting one? Personally, I'm darned tired of threads that center on who has the highest pile of JRR's badly collected jottings. The impact of literature ranges beyond its writers intent. Once it's out there, whether in the form of fanfic or of debates about the nature of what is, after all, an imaginary country (although BJ is mid-post explaining that they all are) or in the form of art, it has value independent.

Otherwise, the trees that fell to publish it made no noise, at all.

So. ante up, boy, if you want to stay at the table. We're still dealing. ;)

[Draken]

Well it is often said that Tolkien's original motivation was to write an early mythology of the English. I've always looked at his works in light of that. If he was writing in that mythical idiom then his work was bound to take on that form, if only to give it an authentic tone. Hence if his writing has relatively few heroic females, I think it reflects the idiom rather than his views. The same goes I think for why the bad guys tend to come from the East - if you're writing a mythology from an English perspective, that's where most of the threats have historically come from.

[Belwen_of_nargothrond]

I don't think Tolkien looked down on women. It was just the times he was living in. Women were a minority and there were some very powerful females in these books.

Eowyn is by far my favorite. She disobeyed her uncle because she could not just sit back and wait for things to happen. She couldn't sit in Rohan and wonder what was happening to her friends or her family. She thought she could help, she thought she should be allowed to help in the war. Hell, if I had come face to face with something like the Witch King, I probably would have turned tail and ran, but she didn't. She stayed and fought not because she was without hope, but because she thought she could be of some help. She was defending her people, her home, her friends, her family, her world.

I commend Tolkien for writing her as he did. Because there wasn't a woman in the Fellowship, that doesn't mean he didn't see women as being strong and courageous.

[Jon S.]

There's nothing more ridiculous than to see people pontificate (in the absence of any evidence, mind you) about the feelings and motivations of people who quite possibly died before they were born.

J.R.R. Tolkein was born in 1892, he met his future wife around 1908 (when he was 16), was married to her in 1916 (when he was 21), and that same year went away to fight in World War One. The Hobbit was published in 1937, at which point he had been married for 20 years, and the first books of The Lord of the Rings were not published until 1954 after he had been with Edith for almost 40 years.

Edith died in 1971 after they had been married for 55 years, and J.R.R. died two years later in 1973. They were buried in the same grave, carved at his request with 'Beren' and 'Lúthien' by each of their names on the tombstone.

All of this is simple historical fact.

You will excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that an author was 'disrepectful' or 'naive' in writing characters who were a tribute to someone who he loved. Lúthien was a character inspired by his own wife, he says in a letter to his son that"[Edith] was (and knew she was) my Lúthien." If the character of Lúthien (or Arwen, her descendant) was idealized and romantic, it is because that's how he felt about her. He was in love.

J.R.R.T. was married and in love for longer than I have been alive, for longer than my parents have been alive. Any criticisms I could ever bring against him in this regard would be nothing more than the ignorant speculations of callow youth.
You write and express yourself extremely well, in addition to making some valid points.

[rohirrim TR]

wayfarer- Good post. Except for one little thing. You say he was 16 in 1908 and then you say he was 21 in 1916...?:confused: How did he pull that off? LOL:eek: good post anyway.