Tolkien - a Feminist?

Started by Phoenix2 pages

Tolkien - a Feminist?

Now don't get me wrong, I know JRR liked his women in the kitchen, but if you actually look at the Lord of the Rings, there are some 'yay women' things.

For starters, women and feminine men do not try to take the Ring. Arwen is not even tempted, Galadriel resists the temptation. Faramir, one of the most cultured, in touch with his feminine side man is not tempted (in the book). Sam, with his caring, feminine side, hates the Ring and does not love it as well, like Frodo and Gollum.

And, one of the most obvious, Eowyn, a woman, vanquishes Sauron's most evil servant, the Witch-king of Angmar (admittedly with Merry's help)

Also, men could not have achieved what they did if it was not for womens help. Take the example of Beren and Luthien - Beren could not have stolen the silmaril without Luthien's help.

Also, JRR was a great beleiver in love, not lust. the greatest love stories of his world - Beren and Luthien, Aragorn and Arwen, Eowyn and Faramir - are not based on lust at all, but on love and honour.

This is all I can think of at the mo.

Maybe Phoe, maybe ormaybe he just wanted his book to sell beter 😛

nah that doesn't sound very Tolkien like, Phoe does arwen ever get in position where she can even take the ring, I think she only meets frodo ones or twice in the book for brief periods of time

speaking of which, do you think it was wise to leave Frodo with the ring when he was stabbed and riding on arwen's horse

In almost every article that I have read about Tolkien he has referred to his wife many times... Although he might have thought a woman's place was at home, that was not uncommon for that time period. He thought alot of his wife and I think that she was inspiration of his strong women characters.

And Frodo never rode Arwen's horse, he rode Glorfindel's.

Originally posted by Aurora
In almost every article that I have read about Tolkien he has referred to his wife many times...

... for example he always connected the lovestory of Beren and Lúthien to his own love, Edith Bratt--- the name "Lúthien" is also found under her own name on her gravestone in Oxford (while he has "Beren"😉

Although he might have thought a woman's place was at home

I don't think that this was his opinion... otherwise he would probably have portrayed Eowyn and several other women differently, like Lúthien - they both left their homes against the will of their father/stepfather and yet their position was supported in the stories, they succeeded in what they wanted.
Interesting also names like "Emeldír the Manhearted" - which he obviously regarded as a positive thing.

A little different maybe is the story of Aredhel the White Lady - she also went on long journeys against the will of her brother, but it ended in darkness, she met Eol and stayed with him, and her son Maeglin finally brought ruin to Gondolin.

When looked at objectively, I do believe that Tolkien did make a noble attempt to include some female characters in a story form that generally does exclude women. After all, the Quest Saga is usually a setting where the men will prevail. Men went out in the world, women sat home and waited. The few novels I have read where women had to attempt a quest, the first thing the character does in disguise herself as a man, for unfortunately obvious reasons.

But when the travelers do come out of the wilderness and meet woman on their home turf, so to speak, I believe Tolkien does an admirable job of portraying them as as well-rounded, interesting characters. I think he was aided in this by limiting the romantic entanglements in the novel. Since he chose not to portray most of the women in the book as objects of a male character's affections, this meant that he had to develop the character on a more cerebral level, as advisors, councilors, or even as antagonist, as in the case of the irritating, but ultimately spunky Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.

As for the individual characters, I see Eowyn as the most complex, "human" female character in the book, and Tolkien does a good job of kindling sympathy for the restless, strong-willed girl, faced with the hopeless task of caring for a spell-entranced father figure, and the threat of an intolerable forced marriage to the evil Wormtongue. I believe Tolkien had a good handle on the dilemma that so many women through history have faced: choices dictated by the whims and wishes of the men around them, which are really not their choices at all.

Galadriel I see in the same role as Elrond: an Elder Statesman who no longer rides to the field of battle, but takes on the much more burdensome task of Leadership, commanding from afar and making the ultimate decisions concerning the fate of their people. Galadriel never comes across as a "second-class citizen". She is the equal to the greatest men portrayed in the trilogy, and the reader is never in doubt of her status.

As for Goldberry: I think Frodo was half in love with her. She represents the best of Womankind, wise, beautiful, loving, protective, and comforting. And she has an approachablessness to her that the lofty Elves and Humans never demonstrate. The more light-hearted Goldberry would definitely appeal to a Halfling's heart. Of course, Frodo is a true gentlehobbit, and would never make a move on a woman who was "taken".

Arwen seems to fall into the category that most women wind up in these novels: she who stands by her man by keeping the home fires burning. Because she is the love interest to the Hero figure of Aragorn, her role is to weave banners, write supportive letters, build her trousseau, and generally wait around for everything to settle down, so that Aragorn can finally claim her in marriage. And of course, in the end, gracefully die rather than be deprived of her True Love. Not the most exciting role to play, but hey, women always give up something for love.

I think that overall, Tolkien was great at writing how the smallest and/or "weakest" can actually become the greatest. Hobbits are another example of this. I believe that the Hobbits accomplish more than any of the Men. They are beings of a lesser greatness who become great in the end. The same goes for all of the women in the story. Eowyn overcomes her longing for Aragorn to find true love after killing the Witch King (now if that's not an accomplishment...). Arwen basically banishes herself from her own people in the end. That alone takes a great deal of courage. And Galadriel used her courage and great will-power to resist The Ring and hence return to the Undying Lands, from where she was banished. And let's not forget Luthien, who is named the greatest of the Eldar, and who is, perhaps, more courageous than all the sons of Feanor combined.

I don't think Tolkien deliberately wanted his works to appear feminist. I think that because there are fewer female characters, it makes them stand out more. I must admit that all of the Men and Elves became one big mass at one point, but the Hobbits and women always stood out among them.

Oh, and there is, of course, the infamous "Dead Mother" Syndrome, but hey, everybody does that. 😉

2 cents. 😄

Originally posted by shadowy_blue
But when the travelers do come out of the wilderness and meet woman on their home turf, so to speak, I believe Tolkien does an admirable job of portraying them as as well-rounded, interesting characters. I think he was aided in this by limiting the romantic entanglements in the novel. Since he chose not to portray most of the women in the book as objects of a male character's affections, this meant that he had to develop the character on a more cerebral level, as advisors, councilors, or even as antagonist, as in the case of the irritating, but ultimately spunky Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.

I think that you make a good point s_b. In LOTR it seems as if Tolkien made a concious attempt to exclude "love stories" in his epic. That being the case, the women had to create a role for themselves, rather than just hiding behind "their man". And in doing that they became very strong parts of the story instead of being in the background.

I hope that made sense 😕 😕

well...that word would have to be defined in the content of when he wrote his stories...are we looking at it from today's contemporary thinking...or is it from the time of when he wrote it...was he portraying the women of his stories as strong willed and opinionated yet were also looked at as being very committed to home and family...

i've always thought the standards of how we portray women mirrored that of how society is in the moment we are in...

all the characters in Tolkien's book are quite different than the female characters that we see and read in today's medium...

and i might add...if my opinions are a little off base...then you can blame my maleness... 😛

shadowy if thats two cents your currency is very strong

😆

Originally posted by sauron
shadowy if thats two cents your currency is very strong

That was what I was going to comment on 😆

😆 😛

Some hundred bucks then. 😄

'A woman's place is in the House and Senate'... i love that quote and this thread made me think of it

happy 17th Muse!!!!!!

yep, happy birthday!

^^
muchas gracias

Don't think so.

Tolkein should have thought to scrap Glorfindel 😘 and put Arwen in his role instead.

Originally posted by Discos
speaking of which, do you think it was wise to leave Frodo with the ring when he was stabbed and riding on arwen's horse

Frodo was never riding on Arwen's horse. He rode on Glorfinel's horse. I believe it even has the same name in the movie. Maybe PJ thought that Glorfindel would have loaned his horse to Arwen?

Adam

indeed, at that time its steed was Arwen....I am not in the mood for confusing people

shame though, the horse had a bigger part in the books than arwen 😛

Originally posted by Ddraiglais
I believe it even has the same name in the movie. Maybe PJ thought that Glorfindel would have loaned his horse to Arwen?

It wasn't only the same name, Arwen even spoke Glorfindel's words to it 🙄 😠