Are Tolkiens Books Sexist?

[Mister Underhill]

(Lack of wisdom at least is supported by the fact that she grasps the tragedy of mens mortality only when Aragorn is dying.)

I would suggest that it’s not Arwen who is displaying a lack of wisdom here. Intellectually grasping that you will some day lose the one you love is not the same as actually confronting the reality of it.

I also disagree with what you characterize as the “only two” interpretations. It usually takes greater willpower and maturity to sacrifice one’s own wishes and desires for the greater good or doing what is right. If she were “weak-willed”, as you say, she would have insisted on accompanying Aragorn and the Fellowship (creating a distraction for him which would have been at least dangerous and at worst catastrophic) or tried to manipulate him into shirking his duty (not just on the Quest of the Ring, but for many years beforehand) and spending more time with her. Her sacrifice of years which could have been spent together with Aragorn under different circumstances is all the more poignant considering her sacrifice of her Elvish immortality to be with him in the relatively few years they were able to spend together.

[Lush]

As I do not see her as manipulator, I must see her in a role that POLITICALLY CORRECT FEMINIST might categorise as a sexual object and price for fulfilling a quest.

Uh, please do not use those vile "PC feminist" terms. They are about as trendy Milli Vanilli.

As for Arwen being a sexual object, well, what's wrong with that? I don't believe the statement, but what's the problem with it anyway? Some things, a man has to earn. I think.

[Nar]

I suspect Arwen spent much of her time working as a diplomat and councillor to her father. This is not stated explicitly in the text, but considering the situation at Rivendell, and Arwen's travelling back and forth between Rivendell and Lorien, it seems likely. Her mother was gone, her brothers don't appear to have spent much time in Rivendell, as far as I can tell, it was Elrond, Glorfindel and Arwen keeping the place going, and Arwen maintaining the alliance with Lorian.

I can see the use of the knight-errantry of Elladan and Elrohir, but I think the work of Elrond, Arwen, Glorfindel and others was even more important. Elves had a safe haven in the west, they had only to succumb to the sea-longing to leave all problems behind: threats, danger of capture, torture, etc. It can't have been easy maintaining Rivendell as a haven and persuading a critical mass of elves to resist the lure of Valinor and stay in Middle Earth with all its darkness and dangers, slowly fading all the while.

Galadriel was still concerned with the fate of Middle Earth, but Lorien appeared by the time of LotR to have largely if not completely cut itself off from non-elves. I think Arwen served a crucial function as a diplomat, maintaining communication and alliance between the still-powerful but increasingly inward looking Lorien and the resolutely outward-looking, welcoming and hospitable Rivendell.

I've never believed in the movie Arwen hurtling around by herself on a fast horse, because considering what happened to her mother, the relentless worrying would have caused Elrond to implode into pulverized pixie-dust. It would have been too cruel, even for the sake of Eowen-style shieldmaiden self-actualization. Even in company with a troop of armed elves, it can't have been easy for Elrond when she travelled, but they both handled it.

While not as dramatically correct as knight-errant or shield-maiden, I think the work of a diplomat and ambassador is just as important, if not more so. It was after all Gandalf's role as well for virtually all of his time in Middle Earth, would you call him a purely ornamental sex-object?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well-spoken, Nar - I hadn't considered the aspect of diplomacy in Arwen's life, but it sounds quite logical to me. Being a counselor to her father would eminently predestinate her for the role of a queen, wouldn't it? I'm sure she was of great help to Aragorn in that way. And patience, the ability to wait for the right time, is a characteristic I wish more modern politicians had!

Your comparison of Lórien and Rivendell is very interesting. Of the two, Rivendell, though perhaps less spectacular, was more instrumental in giving hope and assistance to Middle-Earth at that time - to say nothing of the fact that it harboured the future king during his formative years!

[Anarya SilverBranch]

I do not believe Tolkien's books to be sexist because considering he was writing them from the point of view of a world likening to ancient Europe, I guess he really didn't have a choice.
The women the books had all of the qualities expected of ancient women; skilled in many arts, virginal, sensitive to things men would over look, beautiful, and, if the need came, they could kick butt like any other soldier and still be eloquent and graceful while doing it.

(if my reply is stupid and doesn't make sense, just over look it. I'm tired from a week of waking up at five in the morning for school:rolleyes [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[bombur]

***********
Lush: Uh, please do not use those vile "PC feminist" terms. They are about as trendy Milli Vanilli.
***********

Uh... sorry, may I rephrase again... As I do not see her as a manipulator, I am forced to see her in a role that some of my friends would consider to be that of a sexobject [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

BTW: What the ****** is milli vanilli ?????????

**********
Mister underhill: ”If she were “weak-willed”, as you say, she would have insisted on accompanying Aragorn and the Fellowship...”
**********

...Which logic holds water only, if she is without talent and strenght to be valuable member of the fellowship. In which case she still has no place in my list of strong/mighty/willfull/powerful/personality-infused/etc female charachters of LOTR.

*********
Mister Underhill: ”I would suggest that it’s not Arwen who is displaying a lack of wisdom here. Intellectually grasping that you will... ”
*********

I am trying to avoid direct quotations since I’ve got the books in Finnish and have to translate, but in the story of Arwen and Aragorn in the appendixes of the LOTR, when Aragorn is about to die Arwen said something to the effect of: ”Only now I understand the fall of your family. I always despiced them as vile fools, but if this is the gift of the one to men, it is bitter to take.” Thats what I call lack of wisdom. To DESPICE someone for his weakness and then whine when facing the same ordeal. Have done it myself... subsequently surrendering any claim of wisdom.


To Nar I’d say that the LOTR far more emphasises Arwens role in keeping the eleves in middle earth by entirely different talents then those of diplomat. She was dancing around looking pretty and YOUNG (by eleven standards). I think that is what was meant by ”Arwen the beautiful, maiden of Lorien and Imladris, eveningstar of her people.” Also I’d like to say that diplomacy, at least as it was in the feudal era, did not require much talent from those shipped back and forth between castles as tokens of friendship... I of course cannot ”prove” that she was not a talented diplomat. Then again I cannot prove that she was not king of France. LOTR does not to my knowledge give her a strong role. We of cource always may if we wish. Also it might be worthwhile to note that she was not ”queen to be.” We are speaking of eleves. Both Elrond and Galadriel had all intentions of ruling as long as the eleven kingdoms in middle earth lasted. Nars comment on why Arwen could not have been ”a shield maiden” even if she wished is rather perceptive. I think this goes to the many late born children of Lorien and Imladris. Neither is living the age of great warriors. They are last safe havens, not forward military bases.

Yet I once more emphasise that I basically agree with Anarya Silverbranch. While setting the books in very sexist environment Tolkien still makes up many powerful and believable female charachters. I just do not count Arwen as one.


Janne Harju

[bombur]

Lush wrote:

"As for Arwen being a sexual object, well, what's wrong with that? I don't believe the statement, but what's the problem with it anyway? Some things, a man has to earn. I think."

I could not resist the temptation after all...

You should take into account the possible cultural differences here. In Finland 7 out of 18 cabinet ministers are women. My party has presidet, president of the parliamentary group and president of central comitee all female. President of the nation and president of the parliament are women. 74 out of 200 members of parliament are women. Finland gave vote to women in 1905 being second country in world to do that and first to grant universal suffrage (to women too.) In 1917 in our civil war the red womens guards openly and justifiedly accused male guardsmembers & male guards units of cowardice. Our language does not have the he/she defination in pronouns. 70 years ago my family had a neighbour who beat her wife, my grandmother went there and beat him up, she was woman widely respected in the village community.

Now from this cultural context I should accept the woman on pedestal attitude "some things a man has to earn" EH? [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

In addition to being ancient, the woman on pedestal attitude is rather irreconsilable with attitudes that allow women to have power of personality.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Sorry. Around here it goes like this. Some things both sexes must earn, or do without. I am hardly ABLE to see theese matters any other way.

I may have just fallen for intentional provokation, but so what...


Janne Harju

[Genandra of Mirkwood]

The comparison of Arwen with Luthien is unfair, in that it doesn't take into account the role of elves in the Third Age as opposed to earlier ages. They are fading, and less directly involved in the battles of the Ring. Their role is to give aid and to hold down the "fortresses of goodness" they have established in Lorien, Imladris and the Grey Havens. If Arwen is a wimp, then so are Elrond and all the elves, save perhaps Legolas!

We can safely assume that Arwen is everything a great elven female would be, and that makes her a far sight grander, more noble, tougher and smarter than the stereotypical fainting female of epic literature. It's only if you're already assuming Tolkien's books are sexist that you would need "proof" of Arwen's liberated femininity.

[bombur]

Re: to Genandra of Mirkwood

I am sorry, but that is perhaps the most twisted logic that I’ve recently encountered.

Gen:
”It's only if you're already assuming Tolkien's books are sexist that you would need "proof" of Arwen's liberated femininity.”

Do you mean that only sexist author can include a female charachter who is NOT liberated? Poor Ibsen.

Gen:
”We can safely assume that Arwen is everything a great elven female would be”

Then we can safely assume everyone mentioned by name in the book to be everything a great eleven/human/dwarven/hobbit male/female is.

WHY ON EARTH CAN WE (arbitrarily) ASSUME something like that?????

Gen:
1 = ” We can safely assume that Arwen is everything a great elven female would be, and that makes her a far sight grander, more noble, tougher and smarter than...”
2 = ”The comparison of Arwen with Luthien is unfair, in that it doesn't take into account the role of elves in the Third Age as opposed to earlier ages. They are fading...”

I find it difficult to understand how you can fit theese two claims together?

Gen:
”If Arwen is a wimp, then so are Elrond and all the elves, save perhaps Legolas!”

It seems that now I have finally found my true self. I am a ax wielding barbarian who ill understand any other kind of power then that of arrow and knife. This becomes especially clear as I obviously fail to understand the importance of Elronds or say, Galadriels role as advisors, co-ordinators, suppliers, supporters, leaders and shielders. After all, Since I have failed to place Arwens name between the lines in every paragraph of the book where theese are evident, I must have overlooked those paragraphs entirely.


Janne Harju

[Lush]

Ah dearest bombur, no one's calling you a barabarian. In fact, no one is calling you anything at all. Please don't take arguments addressed at your deductions so personally.

You say that you and I have cultural differences, but I don't see so many. I was bred from a stock of Russian Cossacks, I currently study at one of the toughest universities in America, and have three jobs. You can deduct what you want from these this information (like the fact that I will soon burn out & go insane [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), but in the context of taking an active role in the world, in bettering my own life, and so on and so forth, I am no passive puppy.

What I do disagree on you with is your definition of "sex object", or, maybe, rather the perception of said label.

Frankly, I don't see why this term should have such negative connotations. In a way, the treatment of this term appears to me just as sexist as denying a woman the right to vote, etc.

The point is, I think a liberated woman should have choices. Wants to be President? Wonderful. Wants to sit at home and take care of her babies? Superb. Wants to be someone's mistress? Good for her.

I think that we should not take sex out of feminism. I think we should not lose respect for Arwen for what she did, or did not do. The point is, it appears that she lived her life the way she wanted to.

And as for the man having to earn certain things...Well, a man certainly has to earn me. As for everyone else, they can do whatever. Once again, it's about choice.

P.S. Milli Vanilli were a lyp-synching duo in the early 90's. Infamous for winning a Grammy, and having to give it up later on.

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Belin]

Oh, my. I…um… I’ll just dive in. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Having a sex life and being a sex object are, of course, not the same thing at all. One can only be a sex object in the eyes of those who refuse to see one on other terms. This does not seem very applicable to Arwen; I think Tolkien’s conception of her is a rather different one. It is true that she seems like a prize at the end of RotK, especially since we don’t know her very well. I would argue, however, that to the extent that she does fill that role, she’s not a sexual prize, but a social one. When the hero becomes king, he gets to take to him a noble elven wife who will purify his blood and improve his right to rule over Middle-earth. Certainly. And we’ve hardly met her, so this is just about all we can see at the moment. But this is also a love match, and surely Tolkien went to the trouble of writing the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen for the very purpose of making that clear to us. She’s not (as she might seem to have been) simply a gift of goodwill from Elrond to Aragorn; on the contrary she exercises (and here’s some trendy postmodern feminist vocabulary for you) agency. As Lush points out, she chooses to marry Aragorn, and to make all the sacrifices that she makes for him, because she’s in love and it seems best to her (and not, you’ll notice, because she’s being pushed to by any kind of social construct, or even by Aragorn himself). We even see her at the moment of her choice and understand the forces between which she’s torn. An object? Nah, Arwen’s a person. And she certainly goes through as much suffering to get Aragorn as he does for her.

What kind of feminism is this that only allows you those two views of women, both negative? I’ve never heard anything like it!

As for her comments at Aragorn’s death, bombur, the quote in English is

not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to men, it is bitter to receive.

I call this wisdom. She’s not, in my view, suddenly whining about her mortality, but using the perspective it gives her as a source of compassion for the wicked Numenoreans. How many people are reevaluating their judgement of others at a time like this?

--Belin Ibaimendi

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[Lush]

Having a sex life and being a sex object are, of course, not the same thing at all.

You're quite right to call me on that Belin, and perhaps I needed to clarify my definition of the term "sex object."

In general, I believe that the greater precentage of women are, to a certain extent, "sex objects" in the eyes of men. This has nothing to do with the sexual choices they make, but rather with the general dynamic between the sexes (and nowhere is this more evident than on a college campus on a Friday night [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ).

The point I am trying to make is that almost any attractive woman can be branded a "sex object", whether she uses this "honor" to her own means or not is entirely up to her. In countries such as Thailand and Russia, for example, a huge amount of impoverished women have fallen back on their bodies as a means of survival. Of course, this is more than being a token "sex object", this is simple prostitution, yet I think these terms are linked to a great extent. I also think that unless the citizens of these said countries are willing to fix up their societies, they have no right to judge these women...But that's beside the point.

What I'm driving at is that female sex-appeal needs to get a little more respect, unless men themselves are willing to change (which I find highly improbable).

When Aragorn first meets Arwen, he is floored by her beauty, yes, but we ultimately get the sense that he didn't marry her just for sex (at the same time, we shouldn't deny the importance of sexual attraction in a number of succesful marriages). Arwen exhibits patience, foresight, restraint, and strength. Remember when she gazes at Frodo, and he feels as if he has been pierced? I don't think that this was Tolkien's effort to illustrate how "hot" she is, I think he's really giving us a taste for the whole magic and wonder of the Elf that is Arwen. It's one of my favorite parts of the book, actually.

As for the question of "well why didn't she go with the Fellowship?", have you ever thought about the fact that (besides the reasons that have already been listed, all of them quite logical) she might have just wanted to spend some time with her father and her people? She knew eventually that if Aragorn succeeded, she would part with those she loved, forever. Imagine that!

Why would she give up the last months with her family, in exchange for joining a quest she had barely anything to contribute to anyway, while putting the whole Fellowship at risk for bitterness and strife (imagine what Boromir, who always liked to have his way, would do if he suddenly took a liking to our Elven babe...)? Just food for thought, I guess.

[bombur]

Let us make this clear.

To my understanding sex object means exactly...
a) to be object as in not being subject. Eg. being target of actions and desires of others and not active action taker and someone whose desires would matter themselves.
b) being that because of sex. (eg. gender, not ”poking&#8221 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
... so the term is not synonymous with neither bimbo nor ”dedicated spouse.

Arwens role in the saga can be considered by some to be that of a sex object but not bimbo, if I understand theese things right. Also I might add that some feminists are somewhat less satisfied with the possibility of a woman ”livin her life through that of a man” as many queens or women behind great men do. If that is ones own choise I condemn that not. To choose life as homemaker or as a courtesan or anything, is not to be sex object as one is the active maker of the choises by ones OWN desires.

What comes to a man having to ”earn” a woman, all depends on what one means with that. Also the only right and wrong in that thought is whether one is satisfied with whatever type of men whose interrrest one EARNS with ones own attitude. I cannot fault anything in any other peoples priorities. ”Earning a woman” is dangerous consept because it might mean that woman is sex object or that the woman does not recognise reciprocity. With reciprocity I of course agree.

Arwen clearly makes her own choises. It really (sorry for this) takes a ”politically correct feminist” (I have few slightly of that sort as friends) to see her as sex object.

(sex object = something to be handed out as a prize. Weight on the word handed. Her story-role is that of a prize clearly. But whether she is ”handed out” or whether she is ”self handing prize” is what settles whether she is a sexobject.)

(She obviously is not a ”sexual” prize. In romantic and epic saga sexuality does not exist in that sense. If it did, Aragorn would have jumped to the sack with Eowyn and she had been filling the role of ”sexual” prize. Belin is in my opinion exactly right just about everything save Arwens wisdom. (I still say that the wise are slow to condemn and she was quick, eager even, to despice. THAT is why I see the scene as proof of little wisdom.))

I do not see her as sex object. I see her as a freewilled charachter that fills the story-role of a prize. I do not see her filling any other independent role in the story such as that of a diplomat.

Hence I originally considered and at least attempted to say, that I do not count her among the strongwilled/active/strong/mighty/etc. females of arda, but I do not see her as a proof of Tolkiens sexism either. I am doubtfull however whether I have managed to make this matter clear even yet.

Does she have to be Albert Einstein to catch Aragorns eye, become attracted to him and become rather good queen? No. What I tried originally to say was something of the sort that IF she were in the same category as Galadriel and Luthien as a charachter, then her actions were rather less commendable. Therefore she is a charachter rather more like the classical sex objects of literature, NOT a person to wield her own might and strenght, THOUGH I do NOT question her free and independent will. (Though some do with slight justification.)

Sigh... I wonder if this will end. I propably should kick the habit of trying to bring the basic deeper truths to light by over sort of ”categorical overemhasisations”.


Janne Harju

PS. Sorry if I wrote too harshly to Gennandra, but the logic WAS twisted. That is something that usually sets me off.

PPS. Belin... you asked what kind of feminism allows only two negative views of a woman... I can tell you that there is plenty of that in many feminists I know. Have you ever met theese people who seem to be ready to give tokarev neckshots as well as all kinds of funny labels to anyone whose personal choises of life seem to "uphold the patriarcasy." For some feminists everyone CHOOSING the life as a professional homemaker is evil traitor to the sisterhood. They are the same people who say openly her that the violence against men must not be spoken of as it takes attention from violence against women.

[bombur]

WOW

PPPS. I may have to correct my view on Arwens personality slightly. I just noted what the quote given by Belin contained. Translation between Finnish and English is always difficult as the languages are no more related then Finnish is to Russian, Chineese or Bantu. LOTR is perhaps the best made translation ever, but the meaning comes across definately as "despise". I have to think of this. Scorn I believe might have entirely different content.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Bravo, Lush, for standing up to pseudo-feminism, that trades one form of repression and rigidity for another. My dislike of the inept movie-Arwen does not extend to Tolkien's Arwen. She does in fact represent the classic romantic Medieval feminine ideal.. noble, gentle, wise, chaste, beautiful: but such qualities do not demonstrate sexism. Otherwise only a sword-wielding barbarian would be considered an 'acceptable' non-sexist female character, and we should ignore or deny the full range of female characteristics and capacities. Good and bad, strong and weak. That in and of itself implies a lack of self-worth, that we cannot handle any portrayal of women that doesn't express 'the best.' Or what we assume is best.

Look at our acceptance of the range of male characters in the LotR. Does anyone think that having a weak Wormtongue denies the nobility of Men, demonstrates Tolkien's anti-male sensibilities? Is anyone rushing to the defense of Denethor, on behalf of Men? So what need is there to defend Arwen, on behalf of all women?

What if Tolkien had put in the LotR a really miserably evil woman, a female version of Wormtongue. Would we think that demonstrated his hatred of women, or feel a need to defend Ms. Wormtongue? On behalf of all women? Why?

In a way there is a Ms. Wormtongue, in Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. Does anyone think this character is a demonstration of Tolkien's sexism? She is simply part of the panoply of female characters in LotR.

To demonstrate sexism you have to find a clear pattern. There is none. We have one classic beauty in Arwen, the Princess that is Won, whose hand had to be earned, though her heart was given long ago. A stock fairy-tale character from a man who sought to write... a fairy-tale. True, instead of the 20-year-old blond princess, the elf is learned and wise and noble. But this is a stock character. There is nothing 'sexist' or even wrong with it.

-Maril

[Bêthberry]

That classic fairy tale princess is also dark-haired, Maril. But I guess one of them had to be. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[TolkienGurl]

If Tolkien was sexist he would not have included Eowen killing the Nazgul - a man would have done it, probably Aragorn or Eomer. Galadriel would not have been one of the most important Elves in the Third Age - it would have been Elrond or Celeborn. Arwen was not a sex object. She was a character whom Aragorn was in love with, important to him and those who admire him in the story. Just because she or the other women were not given star parts doesn't mean there were sexist issues involved in the writing of the story. Anyway, it is my opinion that everyone is thinking way too much on this subject. Why do we have to bring personal/social problems (real or imaginary) into LOTR? These books were written a long time ago and modern issues should not be stressed in writings from a different time period. It really doesn't make sense why this topic was even brought up in the first place. Tolkien was not a sexist and to say so or even imply it is an insult to him and all his fans.
P.S. I read a comment on something about if a woman wants to be a man's mistress then "Good for her". That's not exactly good for women. I do believe in one's ability to make decisions concerning one's life, but something like that is absolutely wrong (on the part of the man and the woman) and degrading to women. And yes it is wrong and insulting to be thought of as a sex object.
P.P.S. the Lord of the Rings was written in a time that morals were still widely present in the general society. To imply that Aragorn would be only interested in Arwen eacuse of sex is a crazy misunderstanding and doesn't make sense.

[Lush]

P.S. I read a comment on something about if a woman wants to be a man's mistress then "Good for her". That's not exactly good for women. I do believe in one's ability to make decisions concerning one's life, but something like that is absolutely wrong (on the part of the man and the woman) and degrading to women. And yes it is wrong and insulting to be thought of as a sex object.

Well babe, it all depends on how you view sex, sexual dynamic between men and women, as well as the economic standing of women.
I agree that for most Western women, there are available far better occupations than mistress, sex object, or prostitute. This doesn't, however, apply to the rest of the world. You have to be a realist about these things. Unless we are willing to pluck out every one of the girls from half-way around the world out of their harems, give them an education and give them rights (which we are not, apparently), we should not grumble at their supposed lack of morals.

At the same time, a woman of the West should also be allowed to make her own choices regarding the men she sees, without being branded, to put it nicely, a "scarlet woman." If a woman wants to be a mistress, it's her right, as long as she consciously makes it. Can this be degrading? Of course, but marriage can be degrading as well. I'm European, so maybe I view this issue differently. I find it refreshing that no one in France makes a big deal out of Chirac's ladies (now, if they would only protest his corruption...). Frankly, if I, fed up with school and work, decided to take the year off, flee to Germany, and write my novel while occasionally entertaining visits from, say (for the sake of example only) Gerhard Schroeder, I would expect intelligent people not to judge me, in the same way that I do not judge them over whatever it is that they do in their spare time.

P.P.S. the Lord of the Rings was written in a time that morals were still widely present in the general society. To imply that Aragorn would be only interested in Arwen eacuse of sex is a crazy misunderstanding and doesn't make sense.

First off, society today is no less moral than it was yesterday. The only difference is that now we have the benefits of tabloid television, giving us daily updates on the supposed transgressions of world leaders and Hollywood actors. Back then, that which you call immorality was simply more or less kept under wraps. People had affairs and visited brothels, and did all sorts of awful and nearly-awful things. They just didn't go on Oprah to talk about it afterwards.

And as for "sex in the LOTR", well, we can't deny that Arwen was pretty, can we? We also can't deny that Aragorn was a man. Put the two together, and you can definitely arrive at the conclusion that there was sexual attraction there. Tolkien chose not to write about it, and good for him, I wouldn't want it any other way. I do agree with you that the idea that Aragorn's love for Arwen stemmed only from his need to bed her is a pretty cynical one. She was far more special than that, I believe. So we agree on that. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[bombur]

What comes to the fair lady Arwen (still), I agree with Marils comment: ”That in and of itself implies a lack of self-worth, that we cannot handle any portrayal of women that doesn't express 'the best.' Or what we assume is best.”

We have (here) to a great degree freed women from being chained to the home. Now people like me and some others are speaking about setting men free from the chains that bind them away from home into the employment and definition of human value by adherance to a quota. Reason would suggest that this sort of thing would be in the interrest of women as well (making woman more able to compete in the jobmarket as the employer attitude: ”are you 25 years old well educated person who has had and raised ones (inevitable) kids already?” starts to apply to both sexes), but no. For some people who (erraneously - perhaps) claim the title of feminist this seems to be a threat. They seem dedicated to force the traditional stereotype of man with all of its burdens and expectation-stresses, upon all women. Woman is yet not free of the social expectation to simultaneously be sexmachine and mother and homekeeper (partially because sharing of such burdens/joys is not encouraged) while some people are eagerly downloading the provider and most-muscular-caveperson-of-the-office neuroses on top of their shoulders.

It seems that now that equal pay has been reached and equal opportunity is pretty much here, theese people see as their next aim rising the female suicide rate to equal that of men... not lowering the male one to the level of women. in my opinion, equality is not something about setting limits of acceptable behavior and way of life and setting new stereotypical obligations, but removing the limits and obstructions and opening new choises actively.

What I am saying with this rant is, why MUST Arwen posses acchievement as diplomat or academician or something in addition to being a rather good queen and freewilled person who CHOSE that? Cant you please leave her be. You are opressing her. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

****

What comes Tolkiengirls ps... I generally tend to be a bit negatively disposed towards people using the word ”absolute” in context of their opinions especially when refering to the way of life of other people. While an associate of mine certainly provides me with ample evidence that background in prostitution does not promote mental stability and empathy, then what exactly is to be done about this? And I tell you ”lets disaprove of it” (it?) is social thinking at the level of a five year old.

Though I do have a feminist friend who, like Lush seems to have read the ”Camelian” once too often (”...while occasionally entertaining visits from, say Gerhard Schroeder...” ). I daresay that prostitution is almost never a totally free life choise, unlike Lush seems to think (”I agree that for most Western women, there are available far better occupations...” ). There are plenty of western women in prostitution due to the fact that one needs money, and preferably comfortable amount of that. Brutal truth is that not everyone gets to be a lawyer or a doctor or even to do something so degrading as marry a king. Speaking of sustenance purely, as majority of humans do not go to work because it is a ”true calling” to them, the income level – job discomfort index (speaking figuratively) of prostitution is depending on the person a bit higher or lower then that in telemarketting or wiping urine off floors... (I am only estimating though as I have personally tried only two of the three). It of cource fits neatly to this pattern, that I have for example heard of cutting the welfare of single mothers in US. And talk of harems is a cruel joke when according to the UN the greatest amount of sex slaves in the world is in the US with European imports from East steadily increasing and starting to compete.

In such world speaking of ”absolute wrong” of the ”way of life”, ”chosen” is in my opinion nothing short of either brutality or ignorance.


Janne Harju


PS. Lush: ”First off, society today is no less moral than it was yesterday.”

It is no less ETHICAL. It is less moral. To my understanding the two differ in morality being something determined by society and ethics internal to person. Result is called pluralism and I applaud the devlopment.

... or at least the societys set norms are subtler. This also means that a writer with less courage to follow ones dedication and with less openmindedness then Tolkien, can today exersice ones hypocricy by scorning him as sexist for not writing in few shallow chainmailbikini babes.

PPPS Lush: ”...Arwen was pretty... ...Aragorn was a man. Put the two together, and you can definitely arrive at the conclusion that there was sexual attraction there.”

You need to work on your idea of men a bit more. If I spoke of women with such generalisations, you might have many terms and labels ready for me and in this as in all other things I believe in reciprocity... there are no one-way streets. Those that are one-way, I call problems.

Otherwise I tend to agree with you. Save perhaps commenting that double morale still exists at the time of tabloid tv and people, even celebrities, go to brothels and few really care if the girl there has been lured from poorer countries by promises of employment and instead drugged, beaten, threatened, exploited. This by the way is something that happens in places like Las Vegas and Hamburg. Would not bet about France being so innocent either.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[Lush]

Bombur, bombur, must you make these debates so personal? I have no idea what the Camelian is, will you enlighten me?

Furthermore, I am not here to glorify prostitution, or make it seem "innocent", or whatever. Having been raised in Russia, I do see it as a viable choice for women who would otherwise starve. As for those girls who get maliciously trapped into this lifestyle, well, they are not prostitutes in my book, they are slaves. There is a difference, and we shouldn't confuse the two.

As for the issue of the morals/ethics of society, I don't know man. Was society more moral at the time when women didn't have the vote? When black people were being lynched? When children slaved away in factories? I mean, I just don't see us being any more or less moral than we were a hundred years ago. Calling Tolkien "sexist" isn't a result of poor morals either, I think it's mostly the result of being uninformed.

As for Aragorn being a "man" and Arwen being "pretty", well...uh, the last time I checked, heterosexual men usually tend to be sexually attracted to pretty women. This is not a generalization, or an insult, this is a fact of nature. If it makes you happy, I will gladly state that heterosexual women tend to be attracted to handsome men. I mean, if I had a dollar for every time I gazed lecherously at a man, I'd be on a vacation in Ibiza right now...I really don't understand what's wrong with that.

Now of course, the only question left is, will I sell myself to Schröder? Only if he overthrows a Dark Lord, and sets me up with some nice digs at Minas Tirith! [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Belin]

I wonder if I should ask who Gerhard Schroder is?

Belin is in my opinion exactly right just about everything

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] Now THERE'S something I don't hear every day!!
...All right, as I overcome my shock...Does that include the part where I say Aragorn included "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" in Appendix A for the very purpose of reducing the feeling that Arwen is a prize? Just making sure I'm understood.

But while I'm here... Lush, your point about respect for female sex-appeal is an interesting one. On some level, it troubles me.. I think this has to do with the shade of Mary Wollstonecraft sitting at my shoulder and reminding me that people need to be more than that to society. And then again, I don't really like the idea of power, influence, or quality of life being based on beauty (perhaps because I am not beautiful?). (Then again, you can often find me at my friend's house staring at Peja Stojakavic on the TV, so who am I to talk?)

And, incidentally...

Have you ever met theese people who seem to be ready to give tokarev neckshots as well as all kinds of funny labels to anyone whose personal choises of life seem to "uphold the patriarcasy." For some feminists everyone CHOOSING the life as a professional homemaker is evil traitor to the sisterhood.

That's not feminism. That's just revolutionism. The purpose of feminism is to empower women, not to force them into another kind of mandatory lifestyle. I haven't met them actually.. I tend to spend time with real feminists who sound a lot more like Lush. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] (then again, Maril just said that, didn't she?)

And, TolkienGurl (not to pick on you, lots of people have said similar things, and welcome by the way [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) all this about sexism implied by women not going out and killing lots of scary monsters is rather silly, actually. It implies that killing scary monsters is the only way to have value (perhaps we could dig some sexism out of that?!), which I hope is not the case in a semi-civilized society??

--Belin Ibaimendi

[Lush]

Gerhard Schröder is the newly reelected (whoo hooo!!!) German Chancellor.

your point about respect for female sex-appeal is an interesting one. On some level, it troubles me.. I think this has to do with the shade of Mary Wollstonecraft sitting at my shoulder and reminding me that people need to be more than that to society. And then again, I don't really like the idea of power, influence, or quality of life being based on beauty

Not only do I understand that, I agree with Mary, and with you. I don't think I ever said that sex appeal should have tremendous power and influence. But what I am saying is that the repression, denial, and denounciation (sp?) of it, have negative effects.

I mean, look at American society today. Only a country founded by Puritans would produce a "phenomenon" such as Britney Spears.

[bombur]

Oh sorry Lush... I’m the kind of person to make everything personal... I don’t do smalltalk. Either discussion is academical truthseeking discussion of interresting QUESTION or it is open and truthseeking debate of issue/value-choise of which I have strong personal opinion... or I listen silently... I try not to judge PEOPLE, but if I consider someone to be in error, I do critisise the opinion written with all the subtlety of a doberman. Sometimes I erraneously critisise the person as well. I try to be open and tolerant to similar attitude to my own opinions and I hope that you are tolerant to my manner and take it with a grain of salt not to be offended by it. I am sorry, Tolkiengurl for both misreading your alias and for my quite agressive attitude. I consider your words to be totally unapprovable still though.

Camelian is a quite romantisiced book and movie of the life of a woman living as courtesan (subtely paid mistress) and dying of tuberculosis in the 1800’s (1800’s, I think at least...).

I said, that to a degree I agree with Lush. ”I do see it as a viable choice for women who would otherwise starve” was what she said. I tried to say this: one should not consider it a free choise and one should not further victimise those who END UP to it, even by ones disapproving attitudes.

Basically it seems to me that we are in disagreement over the first issue. The choise of life in prostitution has all the same charachteristics that were given to a factory worker in the 1816, do this or starve. It is by no means a free choise. Even in Finland the system is such that the choise is, do this or live in quite a discomfort and need. I have heard of a person who made a free choise of becoming a prostitute, but she is exemption, not the rule. Typically, but not always, a prostitute in Finland is a Russian semi-permanent resident / tourist with the first kind of choise or a finnish case of person who is a fallthrough case of the social security network often also having other problems she did not get help with like drug use or emotional problems. This is a case somewhere between those two choises.

Lush: ”As for Aragorn being a "man" and Arwen being "pretty", well...uh, the last time I checked, heterosexual men usually tend to be sexually attracted to pretty women.” Last time that I checked heterosexual men are attracted to some but not all women and ”pretty” was no guarantee (though perhaps a bonus for the chance) of the attraction being there. I of cource to a degree see these things subjectively. Maybe there are men out there somewhere who really conform to the stereotype of an ape drooling after everyone with d+ cupsize and b- waist. I have noticed men drooling over slightly different things in real life then in TV however, myself included. Including myself does not mean that I know it all, but at least gives me one more unit of undeniable source material then you Lush has. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Why do men sleep with the lookers and marry the grey types anyway (just to go from one invalid stereotype to another)?

Belin: ”...about sexism implied by women not going out and killing lots of scary monsters... It implies that killing scary monsters is the only way to have value...” Incidentally, of this I agree completely. This is my basis for criticism to the chaimailbikini-bimbo stereotype in the literature. I’m not sure if I have yet said that in this discussion, but I think that it is not real equality that a woman kicks mans in the grotch in a movie. Real equality is that a woman can be a hero in a movie without adhering to the stereotypical behavior patterns of male heroes (and that also even a MAN can be hero without kicking people in the grotch.)

What comes to sexappeal as a source of power.... whatever happens that is just reality. We can discuss degrees of its precence and desirability till sahara floods and hell freezes, but it will not go away even if the whole world did give lipservice to the idea that it should not be so. Myself being somewhat involved in politics I know for a fact that power IS a social functioning of people. Power is negotiation, pressure, conflict, allying, yielding and then more negotiation. I once chatted with a comerade in a cafeteria. We both are overweight and have a dose of charisma or strong precence though perhaps not the looks. We both recognised the fact that we shamelessly use flirting and sensuality for influence. Me being man and she a woman, we use out own sexuality in somewhat different manner, but we definately use it. And let me empahsise the this is not about sleeping with someone for favors or giving favors for sex , that actually wont get you far or give you much. We started a spontaneous debate to find a comerade who does not do this. We found two (out of maybe hundred we know.) Both were heawyweight politicians, had great experteese in limited subject, relentless working habits and all of the manners of a heawy combat tank. Everyone uses it exept for those so well established to a role and position that it would actually hinder and not help. And this does not base the power on looks but rather on skill to use ones own mind, putting us right back at squre one.


Janne Harju

[Lush]

Sweet, now that we're back at square one, let us have clarity.

Bombs, dearest, of course I understand your habit of getting personal. I just think that practicing restraint may prevent this thread from being closed down.

Haven't heard of Camelian, but wouldn't mind checking it out, for recreational reading.

As for the prostitution issue in general, I think we are not just beating, we are pulverizing a dead horse. 'Cause we pretty much seem to agree.

Last time that I checked heterosexual men are attracted to some but not all women and ”pretty” was no guarantee (though perhaps a bonus for the chance) of the attraction being there. I of cource to a degree see these things subjectively. Maybe there are men out there somewhere who really conform to the stereotype of an ape drooling after everyone with d+ cupsize and b- waist. I have noticed men drooling over slightly different things in real life then in TV however, myself included. Including myself does not mean that I know it all, but at least gives me one more unit of undeniable source material then you Lush has. Why do men sleep with the lookers and marry the grey types anyway (just to go from one invalid stereotype to another)?

I think you're taking my quote out of context. I was stating a simple fact of biology. Men lick their lips at women they consider attractive, and women do the same for men they consider attractive (or, uh, at least I do). Bringing in waist measurements here is, I think, a little beside the point.

As for the whole stereotype of men marrying the grey ones....Well, maybe that's because a great deal of ordinary (i.e. average) men can't keep "the lookers". [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] The exceptional must be paired with the exceptional. Actually, that's more of an opinion of mine than anything. Seems that it's an opinion that Tolkien might have shared, at least based on the story of Arwen and Aragorn. I don't believe in most generalizations. They make me yawn.

[bombur]

”just think that practicing restraint may prevent this thread from being closed down”

Well... I think that if this happens, then I just have ended up in the wrong forum. I mean, when I signed to this site, I noticed no disclaimer: ”this site onbly for those humanists who care nought and are not involved in discussions they start, we desire only discussion for which none of the participants give a **** ” The last few posts, we may have gotten bit too involved and discussion has drifted bit more from sexist stereotypes in fantasy to things like prostitution... but now let us get back to the point.

What comes to beating a dead horse, I merely stated thet a pretty woman attraction neccesiates not. Therefore there was more between Aragorn and Arwen then that she was ”pretty”.

”Pretty” is rather meaningless anyway. What is pretty? If one ”is”, ”pretty”... why should I care?


JH

[bombur]

Why do phrases like "to give a sheisse" diseappear around here? In an earlier mail of mine I made some categoriations of some valar comparewd to some mythic goddesses, saying that unlike the historical myth, Tolkien did not make *****es out of them, and it disappeared." I dont get it?

JH

[bombur]

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

My point exactly. If womens stydy graduates in Tampere university can use that word in the final debate texts, then why cannnot one here?

The term by the way was *******, and the issue Tolkiens valar having none adhering to the certain stereotype that Hera, Isis, Friga etc. adhered to.

JH

*EDIT - I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you spaced out the word before you read my post.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Mister Underhill]

Okay, bombur, old boy – couple of points to clear up here.

1. This button - – allows you to edit your posts. Learn it. Use it. Three posts in a row are unnecessary when you can edit.
2. It should be pretty obvious why curse words get zapped out. This is a family-friendly (and at its best, a somewhat scholarly) board. We don’t take our cue from Tampere University final debate texts; we take it from the writings of the man whose work inspired this board.
3. You can care passionately about your point of view in a discussion and still debate with common courtesy. In fact, here you must be able to do that if you want to hang around for long. I’ve seen you pull aggressive, overly-personal rants on other people in this thread and elsewhere, and that style doesn’t cut it. The explanation, “That’s just the way I am, take me with a grain of salt” doesn’t cut it either. If you feel like going off on someone, count to ten or something and then think again.

I’m not trying to chase you off or anything, I’m just letting you know the baseline rules that we ask everyone here to follow. A word to the wise is sufficient.

Now back to prostitution and lip-smacking...

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[bombur]

OK mr underhill...

1. This button...
i kind of know how to use it, I put three posts in a row kind of to ram a point home... it would not have shortened it a bit if I had put it all in a one post.

2. It should be pretty obvious why curse words get zapped out...

Yes... in principle I kind of understand that. I have learned english with phrases like "I do not give a X", which in my mind fluently translate into phrases like "en piittaa pätkääkään" = "I do not care the shortest bit." It just seems so fustrating to attempt to learn a new english language in order to be family friendly. Is the gone with the wind ohrase "I do not give ea damn" ok then? And then the other case... A word that is perhaps a curseword as such, if it is used as a clear definition of a stereotype... I mean word that has been defined as curseword for insulting women and then used in technically for defining why someone does not insult women... it disappears... that makes it all difficult.

3...

well... I must admit that you are at least partially right in this... I will try to bottle the edge.

"Now back to prostitution and lip-smacking..."

Not to prostitution please. I will be hanging from the tapestries by my claws like a cat in about five seconds again. But I think we could go back to the stereotypes of women in fantasy and tolkien...


JH

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[Mister Underhill]

1. Ram your point home with intelligent arguments, not multiple posts. We ask others not to do it. I'm asking you not to do it.
2. I understand you're not a native English speaker. When in doubt, err on the side of polite language. If you see something get censored by the board, that word is probably not considered polite in normal conversation amongst English speakers. Choose a synonym. www.m-w.com is a good English language reference and has a thesaurus.
3. Thank you.

[bombur]

"2. I understand you're not a native English speaker. When in doubt, err on the side of polite language. If you see something get censored by the board, that word is probably not considered polite in normal conversation amongst English speakers. Choose a synonym. www.m-w.com is a good English language reference and has a thesaurus."

Sorry.

That kind of indicates that maybe you cannot fluently speak a language foreign to you. You learn languages by phrases and lines of thought. If you keep consulting thessurus, then you have not learneds them at all.

I do not mean that I err. I mean that I have, please forgive, learned unclean english. And I have not learned to see "inappropriateness" in all the phrases I might use. This aside from those that might also have thechnical meaning like the b+ words when discussing of goddeses."

I will though try to keep in mind that if something is taken out then it may not be polite term. If used technically however, I do not get it.

JH


PS. Ok then Friga, Hera, Isis unlike any of the valar, are (according to enfin thessaurus and according to the afore mentioned graduations debate paper), old women, vixens, hags or missuses... and now no-one understood what they are.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[Lush]

Hey bombs, I understand you're not a native English speaker (as a matter of fact, neither am I, but I've lived here for 8 years, so it's easier for me), so maybe you are just misinterpreting my posts.

I used a broad statement:"heterosexual men usually tend to be sexually attracted to pretty women."

You narrow it down and write: "a pretty woman attraction neccesiates not."

You're criticizing a statement that I never made. Just FYI.

Therefore there was more between Aragorn and Arwen then that she was ”pretty”.

Yes. And that's exactly what I have been saying for the past page or so.

My only real problem is with anyone who says that normal sexual attraction between a man and a woman, or Aragorn and Arwen, is somehow dirty, wrong, etc.

[bombur]

Yes Lush... Basically we are in agreenment about the main issue. But I do not accept all the implications that your words carry. As far as I can see, this whole latest debate started from, similar disagreenment. Of implications in my words, not all could approve of.


JH


PS. dear mister Underhill, I'd like to add, that I did indeed space out the word in the earlier post before reading yours. Even after reading this post, you refer to, I just assumed that it was a quirk of some filter. After the lates post of yours I know better. Basically I was complimenting Tolkien for giving his "goddeses" healthiness of charachter that those of normal historical myth do not have. Within theese set boundaries of language I cannot explain how so.

PPS. And by the way, in earlier times (and to a degree still) the attitude in at least regions of finland was that "the honor of a house is solid man and stern "akka"..." I cannot help but find you sexists when you consider the best (though very inadequate) translation for words like "akka" as a curseword or a insulting word. Old woman could be used as well, exept that "akka", "ämmä", "muija" or "eukko" is not neccesarily old. Issue is a loudmouthed person, holding degree of authority and perhaps also using it rather despotically and vindicatively.

Or (adding later) maybe I am simply totally in error. Perhaps the B-word does not carry any implications like theese and english language simply does not have a translation. This is going to puzzle me for the rest of the local day.

Further later... Perhaps I indeed am not entirely maintaining emotional unattached objectivity conserning the issues here and further, perhaps we do not totally shaer a language either. So what comes to this thread, I think I'll just close my mouth. But thanks for the discussion and sorry for the ocasional outbursts.


[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This thread had wandered a long way from the original question and lost any Tolkien-relatedness that it had. It now appears to be a discussion of personal, contemporary viewpoints on sexism, feminism and prostitution. Those who wish to continue that train of thought should establish personal contact by PM, e-mail or whatever.

I am closing the thread until someone can convince me (by sending me a PM about the topic, not about persons!) that s/he has something Tolkien-related to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said. Required reading: all three pages of this thread and whatever else shows up upon entering 'sexism' or 'sexist' into the search function.

'The Books' is for Middle-earth discussions. That is why the Barrow-Downs site exists. Let's talk Tolkien!

PS to bombur - Your PM function is not enabled. Anyone who wishes to contact you personally cannot do so. Please re-enable it to give other board members the possibility to write to you.