Role of women in LOTR

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I didn't find anything related to this topic in a search of threads of several years, so:

How is Tolkien's treatment of, and the roles of, women in Middle-earth viewed by readers? Is it perhaps sexist? Has the perception changed by readers since the 1950s, and if so, is that an unfair critique. Given the general "heroic age" of the saga and that it was written in the first half of the 20th Century by a generally conservative in philosophy writer, it could be argued that women in such a society are represented adequately. One observation I saw elsewhere pointed out the tendency in modern film (and book?) stories to have women act essentially as men (see Xena et. al.) Galadriel and Goldberry wield a different kind of "power" then simple swordplay. And the one who fights like a warrior does so with considerable reason and is a much more interesting and sympathetic personality than portraying women fighters as almost androgynous.

Eowyn to Aragorn:
"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."

[The Gaffer]

I think I agree with you, Tuor. If there's a criticism to be made of characters it's about the lack of depth (such as Arwen), which is applicable to male characters as well. Eowyn and Galadriel seem to me to be fine, strong women characters.

I wonder what our female mooters think?

[Beruthiel's cat]

I agree with Tuor's and the Gaffer's general comments.

When I first read the trilogy (over thirty years ago), Eowyn was almost an epiphany for me. I was truly suprized that Tolkien portrayed a woman as a warrior. It was unprecedented in any reading I had done previously. Other fictional female characters I had admired up to that point had also been fairly "non-traditional" depictions, so I was immediately drawn to her.

There were, of course, historic and legendary precedents for Eowyn's character, and Tolkien probably drew on those as he created his mythos. Galadriel is also a strong character. I find it interesting that she was the bearer of one of the three elven rings of power, as all the other rings of power were borne by males. Tolkien must have understood the need for a female perspective in this.

Arwen was not so finely drawn and represents the "princess" figure in the fairy tale -- the woman loved by and eventually won by "prince charming" (Aragorn, of course, in this case). I think that that was pretty much her whole reason for being there, and thus did not have to be as fully developed, as her role is understood.

Given the time frame and prevailing social structure and perceptions of the time, I think Tolkein did a remarkable job portraying female characters.

(the author I've had a problem with in his portrayal of women is Robert Heinlein, but that's another topic...)

[Death]

In my opinion, the portrayal of woman in Tolkien's works is not sexist. In a time when men were still considered the more 'powerful' sex, I believe that by reflecting these issues, Tolkien was fitting in with the context of the time. But saying that, I think that there is also a 'under current' to these books, where Tolkien was trying to show the female sex in a stronger light.
Take the fact that there are only a few female characters, most of which are extreamly strong in their characteristics. I believe that he was trying to show people that women are some times taken for granted and that they should be shown in a better light.
So I pretty much agree. Tolkien did a fine job when creating his female characters.

Greetings btw, I'm Death.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Have you noticed that Life is also a member? So, do you guys get along?

Oh, and have you seen the Monty Python movie where Death comes to dinner:
John Cleese: "Well, that puts rather a damper on the evening."

[Death]

No. Never spoken to Life, so I don't know if we'd get along. There may be slight tension.

Yes, I've seen that. I love Monty Python.

Anyway, back on topic...

[ethuiliel]

As a girl, I felt that Tolkien did fine portraying women. At the time LotR was written, women were not seen the same as they are today, and the characters in LotR were strong, well-written characters. Eowyn and Galadriel were especially good, in that they each had thier own personal power. They weren't women acting like men, they were women, who were still women, but also powerful in their own ways.

[LutraMage]

I really don't understand why this crops up so often (particularly in the modern politically correct media).

• Galadriel was clearly more powerful and important than Celeborn and was sufficiently important to be the bearer of one of the Three Elven Rings.
• Goldberry had her own power and position separate from Tom.
• The Entwives were entirely independent of the male Ents and followed their own course.
• Arwen is not given a huge amount of space in LoTR, but it is made clear in the book that she is strong enough to make the decision to give up her immortality and, in the Appendices, she is shown to be a resourceful and courageous Queen of Gondor.
• If memory serves me correctly, Shelob, one of the book's most powerful 'baddies' was female.
• Who would claim Lobelia Sackville-Baggins was a weak character?
• The leader of Sméagol's family was a women "stern and wise in old lore" and it was she who had the power to cast him out and, what's more, used that power.
• Even Rosie takes the lead by telling Sam how he ought to be by Frodo's side when danger threatens (albeit tongue-in-cheek).
• And of course, Eowyn was given a huge role by Tolkien - not only a warrior queen, and someone whom Théoden had the confidence to leave in command of his Kingdom, but also the destroyer of the Dark Lord's most powerful leutenant.

Indeed, Tolkien created an entire legend that would ensure that a women would have to play this most vital of roles - killing the Lord of the Nazgul.

The quest of the Ring was set in a historical time when men tended to be the fighters, and so the Fellowship was made up of males, but I really don't think Tolkien showed any traits of sexism. For his time, his female characters were very strong and independent. So where does the contrary notion come from? I must be missing something!

[Vicky]

Originally posted by LutraMage
reatens (albeit tongue-in-cheek).
The quest of the Ring was set in a historical time when men tended to be the fighters, and so the Fellowship was made up of males, but I really don't think Tolkien showed any traits of sexism. For his time, his female characters were very strong and independent. So where does the contrary notion come from? I must be missing something!

Your not the only one who doesn't understand.

You may not forget that the books were written in a totaly different time. I think that Tolkien wrote something very unuseal for his time (in a time where men dominated ) when it comes to this subject.

[Earniel]

What I don't understand is why books that have more prominent characters of one sexe immediatly seem to make the writer a sexist. Tolkien has strong female characters in his Lord of the Rings. But what if he hadn't? Can't a good book have only male or female characters? Does it bother people that much that for instance Treasure Island barely has one female character?

[Beruthiel's cat]

I don't think Tolkien was sexist at all. He certainly wasn't in the context of his time, and he doesn't come across that way in the contemporary world, either.

He naturally gave the bulk of the "heroic" action of the quest to destroy the ring and bring unity to Middle Earth to males, because that is what he was familiar with from his own experience. He used his experiences in WWI to expound on the comraderie of the Fellowship and the horrors (and losses and personal cost) of war. All writers draw on their own experiences to tell their stories.

There are other authors that have a much more sexist viewpoint than Tolkien, authors who create strong female characters at the beginning of a story, only to have them melt into a puddle of stereotypical female goo in the end when she realizes the big, strong male hero is the only thing she really needs to bring fulfillment to her life.

Tolkein never portrayed women that way. If anything, he portrayed women as equal partners, which is probably a reflection of his relationship with his own wife. Pretty cool for a man so strongly influenced by the early 20th century Victorian/Edwardian outlook.

[Finrod Felagund]

And if you think Tolkien did not write strong female characters (and all those in LotR are not enough for you) read the Silmarillion,
Luthien, Haleth, Morwen...wow...

[Lady Ravyn]

i agree pretty much with what BC has said so far. tolkien may not have many prominent women characters, but the ones he did have were crucial to the story. think about it- the nazgul would have been alive if it weren't for eowyn; frodo would never have gotten out of cirith ungul if it weren't for the light of elendil given to him by galadriel; aragorn wouldn't have had as much of a strong sense of purpose as he did if it weren't for arwen (i think...)
usually, the books i read have women as the heroes or they're on an equal level with the men in the story. while i do like my heroines to kick butt, i think it gets repetitive after a while. (not that i want a sexist book!) tolkien is able to have a male charged story without seeming sexist, and that's something rare for books written in the time he wrote LotR.

[Lady Magpie]

I agree with what's been said before; in a mostly male-dominated story, there are impressively strong, interesting women with lots of character and power in their own right.

That's an interesting point about, how in many fantasy stories and the like, women are made strong powerful characters by becoming like men. I think it might perhaps be the leftover ideologies of older times (I'm thinking primarily way back in the Greco-Roman world. . .) when what was considered virtuous (the word itself coming from the Latin for male!) for a woman was to become more like a man; the less female (and therefore unclean, prey to emotions and passion and lacking in rationality) a woman was and more male she became, the better she was. So it follows then that when a character is made to be strong and powerful, she does so in a "masculine" (and I'm resisting the temptation to go off on a rant about the gender binary right now. . .mostly ) way. Whereas in Tolkien, the female characters do so in their own way, without becoming like men, even Eowyn. Galadriel and Goldberry and Luthien. . .they're all incredibly powerful without running around beating people on the heads with swords. Er. Not to say that all the men are like that, but. . .yeah.

Oh, and greetings and welcome, Death. Is there a specific anthropormorphic personification you're claiming to be? May we meet many years from now

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Lady Magpie
That's an interesting point about, how in many fantasy stories and the like, women are made strong powerful characters by becoming like men. [..] Whereas in Tolkien, the female characters do so in their own way, without becoming like men, even Eowyn. Galadriel and Goldberry and Luthien. . .they're all incredibly powerful without running around beating people on the heads with swords.

Exactly my feelings. And that's why I don't like what Peter Jackson did with Arwen in the first movie. Giving her more screen time, I'm all for, but having her wave a sword around does not make her a stronger character.

As if giving up your immortality and chances of seeing your own family again across the seas doesn't already show the strength of her character.

[The Gaffer]

That's an interesting perspective on Xena-Arwen; I hadn't thought of that. The female characters define much deeper, and more important (loss, choice, home) aspects of the story. Even Rosie Cotton can be seen in that light.

Though Arwen's struggle and strength largely happens "off-stage" in the books and these kinds of thing are harder to represent in film (well, they are if you don't try, for sure )

[Tuor of Gondolin]

An observation about what seems to be a curious lapse by Tolkien regarding women in LOTR. I don't believe he gives the names of Arwen's and Aragorn's daughters, odd for a philologist who built the stories around linguistics. And what were their futures. They would have been very valuable dynastically. Perhaps one to marry a "subking" or "governor" in Arnor? Or what about newly reclaimed South Gondor, Rohan, or even the Hanseatic League-type of city of Laketown? Or perhaps, reminiscent of Byzantine dynastic diplomacy with peoples like the Rus, a dynastic union with one of the peoples on the wrong side in the War of the Ring. (I've always thought the Byzantine Empire was a good analog to Gondor).

[sun-star]

I too have a problem understanding what's supposedly sexist about Tolkien. As others have said, there are plenty of strong women in Tolkien's works - and they're strong in all kinds of different ways. In fact, one could go so far as to say that if he set out to write a book giving women important roles as a political tract he couldn't have done better.

As a female reader, I barely even notice whether a character is male or female anyway most of the time. If they're a good, well-rounded character, gender is nowhere near being the most important thing IMO.

Incidentally, I can never figure out what a "good" female character is. The argument seems to go: if women stay at home, they're living out patriachal stereotypes; if they go and fight, they're losing their identity by adopting male roles. What do these people want? Feminism totally passes me by

[Lady Magpie]

How about people like Galadriel?


About Aragorn and Arwen's daughters, I could be wrong but perhaps there is a pattern of the women being mentioned being the really important/powerful ones, key characters like Galadriel and Eowyn and Arwen; important mothers; irritating relatives. . .

[Radagast The Brown]

About Galadriel... She was called Nerwen - 'man lady', or something like that.
About Eowyn it is said she was a man in the body of a woman.
Gandalf:

My friend [Eomer], you had horses, and deeds of arms, and the free fields; but she [Eowyn], born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours