Are Tolkiens Books Sexist?

[Tarlondeion Of Gondolin]

Are Tolkiens books sexist? I wasn't sure where to post this and as it stemmed from the film I thought this the best place, anyway:
I heard a woman on Newsnight (a news program in Britain) say that Arwen had been added to the film and that originally she was a dull woman who was at a feast, although this critic has obviously not read the book, still. My first thought was how dare she say this when their are such charachters as Eomer who defeated the Witch King and Galadriel but it has begun to dawn on me that maybe they are. None of the Fellowship are women and the majority of the characters are male, this can also be seen in the Silmarillion and in the Hobbit.

[red]

The books are not "sexist." And it is Eowyn, not Eomer, who defeats the Witch King.

If an author chooses to create a story and have mostly male characters, that is his prerogative. Who are we to judge?

-LADY red

[Elanor]

No, I don't think Tolkien was deliberately sexist at all. I saw a programme today though, that pointed out Tolkien was part of a society and class where boys went off to all-boys boarding schools at the age of 5. Then he went to Oxford, which was totally male-dominated at that time. So he probably didn't have much experience of women, and doubtless felt more comfortable writing about male characters, as he could empathise more easily.

[Zippo]

That is the craziest thing ive ever heard...

[Orald]

Back in ancient times women actually ruled all the kingdoms, fought the battles, and held all the jobs as well. A love story or an epic quest? Love story, duh. Battles where women wage war against those inferior male orcs, Southrons, and Easterlings should have been the norm, but why stop there, why not have the male Orcs, Southrons, and Easterlings sit at home and knit or bake cookies.

[RyAN the Pure Heart]

It is simply a reflection of the time the books were meant to take place in. Keep in mind that even in the united states weren't even really liberated until a very short time ago. And the majority of women around the world still arent. I think that the fact that tolkien didnt use women as much as men means nothing really. Now if he had put wmen down it would be a diffrent story of course, but he didnt.

RyAN

[Tarlondeion Of Gondolin]

It was just a thought, but I belive that they are not sexist. WHo are we to argue with one of the greatest writers of all times (in my view the greatest). I know it was Eowyn and I dont know why I said Eomer.

[amyrlis]

I won't complain at all about the so-called lack of strong female roles in LOTR, I guess because I disagree that there is a lack - Eowyn and Galadriel fill the void pretty well. And even though LOTR may not have many examples of Tolkien's strong female roles, I can think of many from his other writings, especially the Sil. Take Galadriel again, an Elf Princess who desires to rule her own kingdom, she sets out for Middle Earth, defying the Valar and leaving behind her father. Turgon's sister Aredhel - she refuses to remain in "hiding" in Gondolin and longs to roam the forests of Middle Earth. Luthien, who battles Sauron (in song) at the Isle of Werewolves (am I remembering that location correctly?). Idril, who had the foresight to prepare a secret passage out of Gondolin, then (with Tuor) lead the remnant of her people safely from its fall. Morwen Eledhwen raised her children and defended her home after Hurin was taken. Evil feared her, and did not disturb her home. She had a name like "Lady of ?", but I can't remember it. I almost forgot Melian the Maia, who protected all of Doriath with her power and gently influenced Thingol with her wisdom. And then there's Varda, Queen of the Stars, and Yavanna, Mother of the Earth. But, I do think that Eowyn is the "strongest" of them all. She was not a queen, not an elf or a maia with special powers or extraordinary beauty. She was just a girl who was misunderstood and alone, but in her most desperate hour she found the strength to face the greatest evil and defend her kin. Anyway, in my humble opinion, Tolkien really admired women and in his writings gave them a stronger role than that which they actually had in early 20th century society.

[Eve]

Thing is, Tolkien was writing into a sexist tradition: epic, which has never been known for its thundering gender equality, and I don't recall much in his other great love, Old English (although I have to admit my knowledge of the latter is limited to having read Gawain and translated a few bits from the New Testament umpteen times as part of my English course). You've got about as many strong women characters as you do in your average epic, really: I admit to not having read many in years, but Dido's about it in the Aeneid (Lavinia too? the problem is that I haven't translated more than Book 4, and haven't read the whole thing in even longer). As for the Iliad, I'm trying to remember any women at all, apart from the ones being fought over (Helen, Briseis, does Cressida come into this version?) who are hardly major role models (especially considering that the Trojan War was a trade dispute, and Achilles dosen't seem to have been that interested in women anyway).

To be honest, my opinion is that Tolkien wasn't the most talented chap when it came to writing from inside a woman's head. I find a lot of the personal relations side of his work not totally convincing: Aragorn and Arwen are hardly passionate romance of the year, now, are they. but in general, he's writing in a world where women aren't very important. on the one hand he did create this world himself, which gives him less excuse. on the other, it's not as if he created it out of thin air, and both the literary traditions he was writing into and his own lifestyle aren't particularly keen on matriarchal societies etc.

how much was known about the ancient matriarchies when Tolkien was around, does anyone know? quite curious. Always interests me the way Mary Renault portrays them in her writings - which are all, at least the ones I've read, from the point of view of a man! would have been fascinating if Tolkien had been writing about that sort of thing. Of course, he'd have produced completely different works, which would have presumably had to tackle the religious bases, the sexual side, the fertility/vegetation/sacrifice side of things. doesn't really sound like him.

hey, not trashing him because of this, no one can cover everything, and he did a mammoth job!

[Eve]

oh yes, and then see the interesting things Le Guin does with gender roles etc. in a similar genre.

What would have happened in a more equal Middle Earth? I don't know, maybe a wild Amazon tribe or two (or equivalent, naturally), the fighting women of [wherever] who fought to the death alongside their men. I still can't see more women in that book. I mean, for starters it's one of the most sexless books I've encountered, and adding more women might change things just a wee bit. You can just imagine the consternation when one of the Fellowship gets pregnant...or maybe Legolas and Gimli straining their friendship out of their passion for a female hobbit...or the terrifying thought of a female Gandalf with PMS (he's moody enough already!)...

for anyone who might take exception to the PMS joke, (a) I'm a woman myself after all and (b) have you seen that bit in "The Robber Bride" by Atwood where someone says, "You know those chemicals women have in them just before their period that make them moody? Well, men have those same chemicals in them ALL THE TIME." nice point, eh. so maybe Gandalf would just be less moody, but everyone would steer clear of him once a month...

[Serevian The Ranger]

uuuhh no

[Orald]

The people of Haleth actually had several Amazonian characteristics. And they were one of the three houses of Men which made up the Edain. There are small pieces about them in a few books, but in UT I think there is a little extra.

Back in ancient times women actually ruled all the kingdoms, fought the battles, and held all the jobs as well. NOT. LOTRs plot was set in Middeveal England and Scandinavia, where women of all ranks were expected to bear heirs(or kids) for their husbands, make sure the houses ran smoothly or work in the fields. It was the men who were expected to go to wars AND even BEFORE Middeveal Women MIGHT have had mor epower but they DID NOT go to war and run countries.
Goldenwood

I think anyone who came up with Shelob could be a misogynist?? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
On the other hand, Eowyn is a great character. I like the way that Tolkien shows her yearning for Aragorn, who she obviously thinks is quite a hunk!

[Lush]

You know what? I understand we're all here because we think Tolkien was a great writer (Yeah, and then there are people like me, who are on page 15 of Book I of LotR), but maybe, he just wasn't sure about how to create a number of deep, interesting female characters. Maybe he didn't know women enough, and didn't want to screw it up. Today this may seem sexist, but back then, it might have been caution.
When I write, I want to know what it is I am describing, otherwise everything comes out trite, and hopelessly dull. I'm sure Tolkien felt the same way; while his stories are set in a place straight out of his imagination, the themes and emotions presented in the books are familiar in some shape or form to all of us. This is the reason why LotR has stood the test of time. I think it would be logical to conclude that Tolkien had to use his knowledge of his own world to create his characters, and maybe his understanding of women did not run deep enough for him to be able to flesh out more than a few decent females throughout the books, and that is why they seem so under-represented.
To use an example: When I read Stephen King, I am always amazed at the scope and depth of his male characters, yet the females almost always fall flat. Minus a few expcetions The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon being one of them, I almost wish he'd just concentrate on the men. But people will surely start crying out if that happens! Probably label him sexist!...See what I mean?
For now, I will just satisfy myself with the fact that the males in Tolkien's books are quite fascinating and entertaining, and will enjoy them to the foolest!

If you mean sexist in the sense of misogynistic, no, I don't believe Tolkien was. If you mean sexist in the sense that Tolkien fostered a particular set of stereotypes about the social role of women, I would say yes.

But this wasn't necessarily something bad. I agree with others who suggest he just didn't know how to create really complex women. But he doesn't denigrate them. If anything, he puts them on a pedestal.

[Snowflake]

I agree that he would have a hard time writing from a woman's point of view. I personally think if he had tried to write more women's parts, it might have brought down the entire series...

[Maeglin]

Come on!!!
The books arent sexistic! How do you reason when you say something like that!
If the women-chars in the books doesnt kill eachother as much as the male-chars does, doesnt mean that the books are sexistic! It probably means that the females in middle-earth are smarter than the men. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Lush]

I don't think they were talking about women in terms of how many enemies they slew...As for me, reading over what Tolkien wrote about Lady Galadriel, I think all doubts about his attitude toward women may be erased by the Lothlorien chapters. Did he understand women? Not entirely. But I believe he admired them (us!).

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

I agree with Lush...and I don't know if any of us truly understand men either
*shrug*
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
He isn't sexist-the fact that many of the main characters in LOTR are male fits the story; and as others have pointed out, there are many women in the Sil.

[Elrian]

More likely is the era in which it was written. Equal rights wasn't heard of then, and women did not go off to war. Not many fantasy novels that I have read have many women charaters in them, so it wasn't just Tolkien. The ones Tolkien did have were very well written and very intruiging.

[Maeglin]

Okay. Sorry Lush... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
I thought of writing something like that Elrian! But I had a hard time writing what I came to think of in english so I skiped the idea. But I must agree with you.
[img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

No, Tolkien's books are not sexist. It's the way Western culture has evolved. Would the stories have been treasured by so many, or even come to popularity had it had a more significant number of characters that were female? Not in my opinion.

The addition of females as heroes would turn away many because of the tradition of medieval heros fighting bravely. Now, Tolkien's world was never supposed to be some kind of parallel or even related to the medieval legends we think of, but they do share many factors - great battles, swords, knights, armies of hundreds waging war over power of the land, etc.

Of course, Tolkien could've easily put in more female characters who weren't involved in the fighting and such, but it would have clouded the story and taken away from the focus - the story of the ring being destroyed and a kingdom restored. He didn't want there to be an emphasis on romance (there's Arwen/Aragorn, which is enough), and he knew the inclusion of other female characters would've brought some of the readers to think there might be something going between this and that character...he didn't anyone implying things like that. (Of course, in the present, we now have people reading into homosexual relationships? Urgh...)

A note for those who haven't read...Arwen's part was expanded due to the absence of Glorfindel. Glorfindel was the male elf who would've found Aragorn/the 4 hobbits in the woods and taken Frodo on to Rivendell.

The original poster mentioned Arwen's role being expanded...I'd say these were more for commercial reasons (unfortunately). For the story to be a movie not restricted to just those who enjoyed Tolkien's work already, it may have been the production team's thought that they needed a female character for the female audience to embrace (to sell posters, figures, tickets, etc.) and also embellish on Aragorn/Arwen's relationship for the romantics. If her part was expanded because they felt a need for more female roles, *if* I was a woman, I wouldn't like it. Does the production crew feel sorry for females as if they need to have a prominant feminine character?

Another theory I've heard people say is that the inclusion of Glorfindel would just add another character for the audience to become familiar with. This seems likely, but really, I don't think he had a big enough part to confuse anyone...an elf who doesn't appear in the story anywhere else (except the council - some say a character played him at the council, but that's just speculation) shows up in the woods, takes Frodo on to Rivendell...hard to understand? I think not. Each of the 3 times I've seen the movie, I went with people who hadn't read yet, and they didn't seem to have any problem understanding. (The only thing I saw them have trouble with was the similar appearance of Aragorn and Boromir!)

Remember, just my opinion... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Enkanowen]

considering the time Tolkien lived in and the way society was shaped, women were seen as those who stay home and watch the house. Eowyn is told this is The Return of the King, that her proper place is at home. This was seen as being protective over a woman, to save her from the horrors of war. Today's standards might consider it to be sexist but indeed I believe that it is merely a reflection of a more conservative time than our own.

[Lush]

Originally posted by Maeglin:
<STRONG>Okay. Sorry Lush... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
[img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]</STRONG>

Oh Maeglin, I wholeheartedly agree with you that women, being those that bear children, feeling life grow inside of them (aren't I the romantic tonight? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ), posses a greater wisdom regarding the sanctity of life, as opposed to men. Not that I love men any less for that.
Besides that-Legalos, I don't agree that the expansion of Arwen's character was entirely commercial (although it was, to some extent, you do need to sell tickets in this business). A great deal has been said on the differences between books and movies as art mediums, but let me say it once more: What works perfectly in a book, may not do so in the movie. If we didn't get to know Arwen the way we did in the first film, Aragorn's character would have been more hollow and distant, and their marriage later would have meant little to us. I have written a great deal regarding my opinions on Arwen saving Frodo, and Arwen at the Ford-on a thread called "People Who Thought the Movie Stunk!"-cute subject title, isn't it? I don't want to bore everyone to tears by repeating myself here, but let's just say that for me, PJ's actions regarding Arwen appear to be logical.

[Mithadan]

I have moved this topic to Books II as I think it fits better here.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Actually ancient matriarchies and the displacement thereof by patriarchal Semitic tribes forms a strong component in Robert Graves' view of Greek mythology. He was a contemporary of Tolkien's and, what with JRRT not being unconnected with mythography himself, I should think that he was aware of the existence of such past societies.
Moreover, the Anglo-Saxon world that Tolkien studied in such detail was more egalitarian in its gender mores than a lot of people suppose; more so than that of their Norman usurpers at least: King Alfred's daughter, Æthelflæd, is consistently portrayed as being the real power in Mercia, some Irish sources feeling the need to justify her strong role through a phantom illness of her husband's.

My view tends towards that expressed by several people in this discussion, that Tolkien felt more comfortable writing about men, but we shouldn't point overly much at his cloistered life as he was a married man and father. I think that he was uncertain of himself when it came to writing about women, and that this was exacerbated by the style he chose. As for Arwen Evenstar, who sparked off all this debate, I should say that the lady who could give up her people not just for life, but for eternity in return for the uncertain fate of mankind; who could stand to wait for years while her man risked his life countless times, and to see the stress it placed on him and still be a support when he did turn up is a strong enough character for my taste, if a little unfashionable. People these days often underestimate the strength of character it takes NOT to go on the adventure, and to hold the fort instead, which is just as vital a part to play, if less glorious (note the role of Fredegar Bolger). Anyway, that's my rambling two-penn'orth

[Orald]

To Goldenwood, I hope you realized I was joking. I don't se how anyone couldn't, so I guess you did.

i dont think it is sexist, just that he doesnt put many female charis in the book! eowyen played a kinda-big part, and they added arwen just for the 1st movie, cuz really all they said was like "and arwe, elrond's dauaghter was at the table also.." and that is all i remember of her from the FOTR

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

plus a description of dark braids untouched by frost...Squatter I'm in danger of agreeing with you again! lol I've never really thought of Arwen's role that way-that it's harder to remain behind-thankyou [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

No need to thank me; it's harder not to express my opinion. At great length.
That's just something that occurred to me as I was re-reading LoTR this latest time. It seems to me that nowadays it's considered somehow weak for a woman to behave as Arwen does, but here's why I think she comes out as a strong character: Unlike Eowyn, Arwen isn't skilled at arms, and going along with Aragorn would only distract him with worry about her welfare. He needs to know that she's safe to keep his mind on the job and I don't doubt that she knows that. It would be self-indulgent and incredibly stupid to try and go along, so she stays at home.
What's also impressive about Arwen is her constancy, which isn't a trait that I see very often outside books: she's prepared to wait for decades while Aragorn does what he has to do to help save the world. It would be pointless not to accept it, since he doesn't really have a choice, but a lot of people would still complain and issue ultimata, perhaps even call the whole thing off. Instead she helps where she can by making his royal standard. This doesn't seem so important to a modern audience, but in a medieval army the standard is the focal point, enabling soldiers to find the general in the confusion and representing the army's pride and sense of purpose. One might even call it the army's heart and soul, which is why so many standard-bearers are killed on the Pellenor Fields. Also imagine the King's force coming up the Anduin without a flag to identify them: that could have been nasty.

It's this wisdom and spiritual stamina that make Arwen such a good character, however small her part may seem to the uninformed. I don't think that Aragorn could have kept going without her.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Tolkien wasn't misogynistic: I don't think he was putting down women, trying to push an agenda or promoting his own views about gender and society in his work. In fact, I don't think he had any opinion about women.

Women in Tolkien's books are like Hobbits in Middle-Earth: creatures of myth, that most people have never met. And when they do meet them, they're not particularly interested. Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Melian, all of them are mysterious creatures that might worship but never truly understand. The only exception (I think) is Eowyn, who is, for all dramatic purposes, a man.

Tolkien wrote about women the way he might have written about Chinese culture after having spend two weeks in Beijing. In my opinion, it's one of his major shortcomings as a writer, but on the other hand, the stories he wrote took place in a man's world, so his literary 'sexism' if you want to call it that way, had almost no influence on the quality of the books.

A quick note about Arwen in the movies. I don't think Peter Jackson was trying to force a female character into the story. He just wanted to turn the couple of existing Aragorn/Arwen scenes into a subplot, so that we actually care about it when the story ends. We won't know if he was successful until 2003, but I think that it's an excellent idea.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Women in Tolkien's books are like Hobbits in Middle-Earth: creatures of myth, that most people have never met. And when they do meet them, they're not particularly interested. Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Melian, all of them are mysterious creatures that might worship but never truly understand. The only exception (I think) is Eowyn, who is, for all dramatic purposes, a man.

I think that's a bit strong: Let's not forget that Melian is actually a divine being, and if the others seem distant and reserved in LoTR, then it's probably because we only see them in their guise as members of society's elite (I think we can assume a similar view of emotional display to that of polite Edwardian society: that it should be saved for private moments). Perhaps also we're shown the elven women as the hobbits would see them: ethereal and timeless, creatures of wonder. Galadriel does let the mask slip briefly when Frodo offers her the Ring, but only for a fleeting moment and we never really know if she wants to decare herself "not the figure cut in alabaster" in reply to Gimli's flowery praise.
Eowyn perhaps seems more human to us because she shows more of herself, but Eowyn is quite young and impulsive, and she's human. To say that her dramatic role is that of a man is missing the point: her story couldn't happen to a man, because a young nobleman in a warrior society would be out riding against the enemy and taking a military role rather than dry-nursing an infirm king. Therefore a young man would neither want nor need to run off to war in disguise (nor would he be driven by unrequited love for an older man, I should hope).
To understand the reserve largely shown by the noble characters, you have to understand the huge division in British society at the turn of the last century between public and private life. Nowadays tabloid journalism and widespread overcrowding have made it increasingly futile to try to keep anything truly private, but in Tolkien's younger days it was expected that people of a certain class, women especially, would show emotional restraint in public, using more formal language and avoiding personal conversation, save of the most trivial sort. Such formality is rare now, but it shines out in Tolkien's work. He would probably regard intruding overly much into the private lives of his characters as vulgar and rude; in fact we only find out anything about the members of the Fellowship by long association over months of travel through hostile territory.
My view is that Tolkien, however much he yearned for earlier times, was a product of his own after all, and he couldn't help making his characters very reserved and stiff-upper-lipped, just as he himself was trained to be at boarding school. I postulate that, given this reserve, it would have been impossible to paint an intimate portrait of a woman using the narrative style of the book, which uses an observational point of reference that is seldom near them. Eowyn escapes from this emotional obscurity by being closer to the action than the others and therefore more open to the observer's eye. I don't regard the absence of women on the ring-quest as deliberate; it just wouldn't have seemed right to a man of his class to allow women to go into danger when men could go instead: it wouldn't be a gallant thing to do.

i agree that tolien had a proplem with women, but he spent most of his lif at Oxford, an all male university at the time,
he never spent any time with women, he didnt understand them. but you have to take into account British society at teh time he wrote the book. Women were only just begining to me emanciopated, (this explaines Eowyn) and women were seen as beutiful objects to behold, the elves, Arwen and Gladriel, etc. Women were misterious to Tolkien, thus he made most of them elves

[Elven-Maiden]

If Tolkien had put one girl in the fellowship, there would have been problems. Some of the guys would have to have fallen in love with her, and they'd fight over her... and then there'd be unimportant plotlines. It would destroy the innocence. And remember, he was writing it for his son, if it had been for a girl, he might have put more in.

[SlinkerStinker]

Everyone seems ready to cast stones. I find it quite troubling that people look at someone's writing and then extrapolate from the writing into what the writer believed. If you want to try and make a case for Tolkien being a sexist, try and do it from letters he wrote or an interview he did, but not from his works of fiction.

Using this same "logic" you could say he was rasist as the only colored people he spoke of in LOTR where from way down south in the desert and were helping that nasty Sauron.

Woops maybe that's another thread all together though...

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Also, none of the Fellowship were women

I know this is politically incorrect... men are actually a lot stronger than women. They make better fighters and are hardier for long journeys, and can carry more weight. Men would stand a better chance.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Squatter, I agree with what you've said (Jan.18) on Arwen! In these days of instant gratification not many people understand the concept of waiting and hoping. And your insight (Jan. 20) into the socio-cultural background helps put things in perspective. Thanks!

[Lobelia]

I would like to look at this from the point of view of the reader, not the writer (I agree with SlinkerStinker that you can't directly make judgements about Tolkien's sexism or not from the fictional books -- and I am also less interested in the man's own attitude than in the effects of his fiction).

From the point of the view of the reader, I think the problem is not so much that the women are or are not strong / admirable and so forth but that they play such a secondary role and that there are fewer of them. Readers identify with characters in books, and for male readers there are dozens of very different characters to choose from and they appear throughout the books. If we just take Lord of the Rings: You can imagine that you are or wish you were Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Legolas, Gandalf, even Saruman. Maybe some women readers do identify with Arwen or Galadriel and, more likely, with Eowen but this wouldn't keep you going for whole chapters, even books, during which these don't appear. Also, the choice is very reduced: you can be otherworldly and more perfect than perfect, or you can be a man-woman, or you can be a comic crone (Ioreth) in a very minor role. There is, admittedly, one evil female character but she is so vile (Shelob) that her very contrast to the invariably beautiful and valiant women falls into the old duality good/beautiful woman versus evil witch. She is also not even a person but a beast. The variety is certainly nowhere near as large as it is for the male characters.

This sitution hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the book but it does, I think, make the relationship of women readers to the fiction different from that of men.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

but he spent most of his lif at Oxford, an all male university at the time

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford's first women's college, opened in 1878; fourteen years before Tolkien was born.

he never spent any time with women

He was married, although I'm willing to concede that he may not have spent much time around more than one woman.

Women were only just begining to me emanciopated

Women over 30 were given the vote in Britain in 1918. In 1928 the minimum age was reduced to 21, in line with that for men. The first woman MP was elected in 1919. By the time Tolkien started writing LoTR emancipation was well underway. Also during the first war many women took over the jobs of men who had joined the army, a fact of which Tolkien would have been well aware. By the time RoTK was published women's rights had been on the political agenda for upwards of seventy years and service as nurses, military auxiliaries, munitions workers and so forth in the Second War had certainly got people used to the idea of women at work. I'd hardly call this the beginning of emancipation. More like a mid-way point.

Women were misterious to Tolkien, thus he made most of them elves

That may be true, but I'm not so sure that society was to blame. Perhaps lack of interest in the subject played a part as well.