Females in the Fellowship

[mark12_30]

If I may add a military perspective on the development of close combat situations and a tightly knit team:

In terms of the Fellowship, I would compare them to a submarine crew; together for many months under tremendous stress and strain, needing to depend fully on each other in sudden crises.

A submarine commander simply cannot risk that one of his sailors be emotionally involved-- I mean romantically but not necessarily physically-- with another on board ship. The sailor must be able to consider everything with a dispassionate mind. If five guys are dying in one compartment and one guy is dying in another compartment, the sailor cannot choose which one he wants to go and get; he has to go and get the one that his commander tells him to. Emotional attatchments are out of the question.

That is a very important reason why females are not on board American submarines. The odds that one of those hundred-or-so guys would fall for the woman is pretty high, especially after three months of intense nearness and teamwork and cameraderie. Whether he acts on it, whether he's allowed to express it or not, is not the question. The question is, "Is she special to me." Cmomanders can't afford to have that question being asked.

Even if nobody fell for her, there could still be the tendency to have a chivalrous attitude towards her, which places her on a different emotional plane than the rest of the crew, again, making her "special". You have one woman dying in one compartment, and five guys dying in another compartment. We can say they shouldn't think or feel chivalrously til we are blue in the face. The fact is they do feel that way.

So the submarine commander cannot risk women on board because he cannot risk emotional entanglement. (Let's also remember, some of these sailors are eighteen years old-- I've saat in class with them; they are hormones with feet, God bless 'em.)

For the SAME reason, submarine commanders don't want gay men aboard: because the risk of ANY emotional entanglement is a threat to military efficiency and cool-headedness in battle.

We can deny this all we want, but experience bears it out; and gentle, non-discriminatory, equal-opportunity minded submarine commanders nevertheless stand by this. The risks of emotional involvement are not acceptable.

So what about women in combat? If we are to put women on board submarines, I say great; but it will have to be an all-female submarine.

Heh heh heh. Now there's a thought.

Anyway, is that why Tolkien didn't have any women in the fellowhsip? I doubt it; there were no women in the trenches with him in WW1; it wasn't a topic for discussion back then. He had plenty of wartime experience, and all that experience told him that you send teams of males. He did what he knew. But if he knew then what we know now, would he have changed it? I doubt it.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Atariel,

Thanks, Bethberry, for the kudos.

As I said before, I think there are a number of reasons having to do with Tolkien's own past and the nature of his writings why it would be difficult for a woman to fit easily into the fellowship.

But, Atariel, I wanted to make clear that, though we may loosely stand on the same side of the fence on this question, I radically dissent from your reasoning. Your arguments are based on common, outdated stereotypes.

1. The statement about the menstrual cycle is not valid since some women experience difficulty, while others do not. By the same flawed logic, you could argue that fifty-year old Frodo should definitely have been excluded from the fellowship on the grounds that he might have had a man's mid-life crisis, which is quite common.

2. "Girliness and "getting your dress dirty"....Please no. Do not tell me that after all this time, something like this still hangs over our heads.

3. "Women are notoriously *****y, chances are they would fall in love with someone, or have an argument with someone"..... Is this what happens when, we send up "mixed" crews of astronauts, male and female, which would be a comparably difficult task in crowded conditions. I had not heard such reports.

4. "Men versus women falling apart when someone dies." I guess that's why my close friend chose to go into hospice nursing and do the hard day-to-day work with terminally ill patients. Actually, she tells me that eighty percent of the health care workers in hospice situations are now women.

5. ..."the idea of a woman having an important role in, ultimately, a violent cause is laughable." Does this mean that the fifteenth-century Joan of Arc who rode at the front of the French troops was laughable?

Yes, women in battle situations are still the exception rather than the rule even today, but even in the middle-ages there were women who stepped forward. There are documented cases of the lady of the household taking over the efforts to reist a siege, after her own husband was killed.

If we take your logic even further, why would anyone include any hobbits in the company? If we're only looking for the blokes with the biggest muscles and hardest heads, as your argument implies, surely hobbits would not have been welcome.

Tolkien obviously thought differently. He could see how we all have different skills and contributions to make, and that the efforts of a Merry or Pippin in the Fellowship (to say nothing of a Frodo or Sam) were just as valuable as those of a Gimli or Legolas.

Helen,

I know we've politely disagreed about the topic you've raised before. I have to run now, but will respond later.

sharon

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Lush]

If you apply the same logic that Helen (i.e. mark12_30) uses in describing the disruptive possibilities of the male/female dynamic in the military, you would be leaving out the aspect of homosexuality, because gays, though they are not wanted in the military, are still present within its ranks.

*Lush thinks that Helen, must have forgotten about the don't ask/don't tell policy in the American military*

Most importantly, it's against human nature not to become emotionally involved with certain people who share the same hardships with us for a long period of time, with or without sexual innuendo: it's called friendship. Perhaps our military commanders like to pretend that such a thing does not exist within their ranks, but everyone knows better than that; so of course there are going to be situations when emotional involvement double-crosses duty, it's called life, and it happens with or without females present.

Even better, if we go further and apply the same logic to the Fellowship: Sam should have been chucked out of there and sent home to harvest his potatoes on the very first day.

At this point, it is very hard for me to accept any sort of logic behind the explanations as to why there are no females in the Fellowship, unless it addresses Tolkien's personal beliefs and abilites as a writer.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[mark12_30]

No, Lush my dear, I didn't forget. My point was, what commanders WANT. And they want no emotional entanglements.


Having said all that-- the Fellowship was a different kind of team, mature (mostly) and varied (mostly.) And I also think the emotions between the males were pretty strong. So I agree with you there.

However, compare that, with Gimli's reaction and devotion to Galadriel. If Galadriel was endangered, could Gimli be objective about it? I don't think so.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon, I so love your ability to politely disagree. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Are you going to talk about Deborah? She's cool. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Lush]

However, compare that, with Gimli's reaction and devotion to Galadriel. If Galadriel was endangered, could Gimli be objective about it? I don't think so.

Naturally. Neither could Samwise be objective when Frodo was endangered.

[mark12_30]

He managed it, rather frequently, I think. "Whoa, Sam Gamgee; your legs are too short, so use your head..."

He talked himself into it. Frequently. Not always, but often enough.

Besides, Sam was Frodo's servant; strictly speaking, he was under Frodo's direct command, not Gandalf's or Aragorn's except by chain-of-command. His default choice of of loyalty to Frodo was obvious and appropriate.

[Lush]

So? The point still is: Sam was emotionally involved. No regular military commander would stand for that.

[mark12_30]

In modern day, it would have been grilled out of him in Boot Camp. That's what Boot Camp is for.

[Lalaith]

Please. Can we not have any discussions about the American military? Not just because they are not actually relevant to Middle Earth, but because this is one of the few places where one can flee from such discussions, at the moment....

[Durelin]

An excellent analogy, mark12_30. I have much trouble explaining this stuff. I am already at a loss. Oh well.

Lalaith - Why not speak of the U.S. Armed Forces? Fleeing those kinds of discussions is running away from reality. You see things about the U.S. Military no matter what is going on in the world, why stop talking about it? Why stop discussing reality? Sorry. A totally seperate and non-Tolien related discussion.

[Lalaith]

Durelin, I was going to put a smiley on the end of that plea to signify that it was only intended as semi-serious in tone, but then I thought it might look flippant and inappropriate. But if there were such a thing as a semi-serious smiley, please take it being there...

But in fact, I think that the discussion is getting a bit bogged down in our own, contemporary reality. So, instead of allowing our imaginations free rein and investigating the characteristics and possibilities inherent the different races Tolkien created, within the boundaries of Middle Earth, some of us are getting tied up in knots about ERA and sexuality aboard submarines and periods and heavens knows what else.
Surely, this thread is not just about whether you, or I, or any other modern human female in the real world would be able to cope on such a quest, and how there would be no face cream or tampax in the backpacks and Legolas would get this big crush on us and all the boys would fight about it and everything.
I'm personally more interested in the different races Tolkien created, what gender differences *they* had. Tolkien had some very interesting ideas on this issue - female elves could and did fight, for example, but not after having children. Also, no elf, male or female, who was involved in healing could fight as this was seen as contradictory.

[The Saucepan Man]

Why not speak of the U.S. Armed Forces?

Well, you said it yourself:

A totally seperate and non-Tolien related discussion.

I just don't see any analogy (sorry, applicability [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) between the structure of US (or any country's) military forces and the formation of the Fellowship. Quite possibly, if we were discussing military forces in ME, this might be relevant. For example, why did the Rohirrim provide weapons training for their women (or at least their noblewomen such as Eowyn) but not include them in their armies.

But this is a discussion of why there were no women in the Fellowship. The Fellowship was not formed in the same way that one might put a military cadre together. It was formed almost spontaneously (OK, not quite as spontaneously as in the film [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] , but relatively so nevertheless) from those that were available and willing to go. And its formation also relied to a fairly significant degree on pre-existing friendships/relationships (the hobbits).

I see no reason, in ME terms, why, if there were females who were present at the Council of Elrond (or, indeed in Rivendell at that time) who were willing to join the Quest, whose abilities were trusted and respected by the likes of Gandalf, Elrond and Aragorn and/or who had developed strong bonds of friendship with existing members, they should not have gone. None of the various arguments put on this thread for excluding females convinces me otherwise.

However, the fact is that there were no such female characters (of which we are made aware) fitted this description. Arwen comes closest, but only in her film role. We know very little about how suitable "book" Arwen would have been for the Fellowship. And it seems unlikely to me, in any event, that Elrond would have sanctioned her becoming one of the Nine Walkers.

So, why were there no suitable female characters? Because that's the way JRRT wrote it. And I am sure that's because that is the way he felt it worked best. Possibly, in view of the time that he was writing, it would not have occurred to him to include a female character in the Fellowship. But I doubt that, given his development of Eowyn's character. No, I believe that he felt that the Fellowship worked best as an all-male outfit. Possibly, this is linked to his experiences of male comradeship in harrowing situations in WW1. Quite possibly there are other reasons. I do not know enough about his life to speculate (although others who have read biographies and/or the Letters might be able to assist further). But whatever the reason, it seems to me that that is the way he wanted it, so that is the way he wrote it.

[Lush]

I think the quote that Bethberry provided pretty much says it all for me, Lalaith, whether we are talking about Elves or Men.

*runs off to put on her face cream and use her obviously inferior brain in order to somehow complete her homework assingment, but ditches it to go flirt with an Orlando Bloom look-alike instead*

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen,

I honestly think that the personnel of a submarine or a unit in the U.S. armed forces does not resemble the Fellowship. Such groups have hundreds or thousands of folk within their ranks who do not know each other in the slightest. They also have an organized hierarchy with every person knowing his exact rank.

Let's take a model which would be much closer to that of the Fellowship. OK, I'm biased since I live in Houston, but, in my mind, that would be the space program. Every shuttle that goes up carries a mixed crew, men and women, all dedicated to one task and working in very tight quarters for a considerable length of time. Like the Fellowship, these folk's main goal is not to engage in battle but to go on a long and potentially dangerous journey.

While these two are scarcely equivalent, they are a lot closer in spirit and intent than a large modern fighting force would be. No one complains or says that we shouldn't put male and female astronauts together. As far as I know, no missions have been imperilled because of the crew having a mixture of men and women.

Another analogy--the small research crews made up of dedicated men and women who go to the Anarctic for month after month of extreme hardship and danger. Again, no one gripes or expresses concern about some of the participants being women.

I'm with Lush on this one.

At this point, it is very hard for me to accept any sort of logic behind the explanations as to why there are no females in the Fellowship, unless it addresses Tolkien's personal beliefs and abilites as a writer.

I do think there are factors within Tolkien's own past, and the society that he lived in, which made it impossible for JRRT to create a felowship with both men and women. But, in my view, there is nothing inherent in the psychology and make-up of men and women on this earth that would preclude such an option on those grounds alone.

It seems to be that we're also dealing with cultural factors here. Helen, your assumption and presumably that of the military is that all personal ties must be pummelled out of the soldiers. But, historically, this has not always been true. In ancient Greece, and certain other cultures, the military leaders were pleased when the men under their command developed lasting bonds with each other. They felt this would make the men more likely to risk their lives and perform brave deeds for each other.

Believe me, I am happy the way Tolkien depicted the fellowship, but it's not the only possible model that could be followed.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Aratlithiel]

OK, everyone - we're talking about a man who was born in 1892. I stand by my earlier statement that he simply could not be expected to be capable of writing a female character who would have weathered the feminist storms of recent years and still remained attractive to female readers in today's society. Even female characters written by female authors contemporary to Tolkien are not women that would have stood up to today's standards. Jane Austen and Lara Ingalls-Wilder wrote strong female characters for their times, but those characters would still be considered lacking by today's standards.

I don't believe any female character written in the context of Tolkien's times could possibly have avoided the weaknesses inflicted by the prejudices the writer HAD to have had concerning women in leadership roles. I don't think a woman in the fellowship would necessarily have had problems with mooning over the men or with 'monthly' problems, but that the author couldn't help but write her that way - he would have to have given her many of the weaknesses that a man born in 1892 would have certainly believed women to have. Is that something we really want to have to deal with in today's times?

Considering all of that - it's my personal belief that it's better that no woman was written in so that I don't have the problem of avoiding one of my favorite past-times (which is, of course, re-reading LotR) simply because I can't stand the way the female is written.

Again - any change in the make-up of the fellowship would have made the end product DIFFERENT. I don't even want to think about that!

[Morwen Tindomerel]

I read somewhere that Eowyn was created by Tolkien specifically to give his daughter, Priscilla, a character to identify with. Judging by the way female readers have been connecting with the Shield Maiden of the Rohirrim ever since he did a fine job.

Marnie Goodbody, (listmistress of The_Istari@yahoogroups.com) pointed out that Gandalf, (and so by extension Tolkien) shows a great deal of sensitivity to the problems of a spirited woman living in an patriarchal society, you remember that speech to Eomer about Eowyn having spirit and courage equal to his.

The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and Histories of Middle Earth most definitely prove Tolkien was capable of creating vivid female characters, nor were all idealized; Aredhel is a spoiled, willful brat and so is Tar-Ancalime; Erendis is at least as sinning as sinned against; and Galadriel doesn't come out smelling like a rose either in some versions!

[Lalaith]

Thank you Morwen! I agree entirely.
I have to confess that a lot of the time I'm a bit confused by the PC debate. I studied English Lit at university, but not in the US. It sounds to me from what some people have been saying that the way Eng Lit is studied these days in the US is rather political. Am I right?
Bethberry, your quote from Tolkien's letters was very interesting, but it was written in 1941. As someone (Child I think) pointed out, Tolkien's creation of characters like Andreth came much later in his life. In 1941, he would probably not have been teaching women for that long, but I would hazard a guess that his views may have changed from that expressed in the quote, over the years. Particularly with his creation of Andreth.

[Bêthberry]

Lalaith,

Yes, it is true that some of the female characters in Tolkien's later writing moved away from this stereotype of the inspiring, beautiful goddess. However, that does not, I think, negate the value and importance of the 1941 letter,

Tolkien's academic career spanned the years 1925, when he was voted to the position of Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford, to 1945, when he became the Merton Professor of English Language and Literature, to his retirement from Merton College in the summer of 1959, five years after the publication of LOTR.

Thus, the letter written in 1941 represents Tolkien's view of female students in his mid-career. He had been teaching for 16 years and would continue to do so for another 18.

The genesis of LOTR appears to have occurred c. 1937, with the the decision to name this 'sequel' LOTR coming about the time that Chamberlain signed the Munich accord with Hitler, according to the biographer Carpenter (p. 252).

While it is true that Tolkien was an extraordinary reviser and revisionist (and his literary remains provide us with fascinating evidences of the nature of his creative process) that letter probably can stand as some sort of signal of his thought during the initial years of writing LOTR. What he did in his unpublished writings in later years does not change the state of his thought while composing LOTR.

That said, I hope I will be allowed a short observation about this thread. It seems to me that this topic is about as fruitful as any of the other "what if" topics--an opportunity to put forth unexamined ideas (we are all prey to our menses)or to argue tangential applications rather than to look for a more knowing understanding of Tolkien's work, in either its genesis, its evidence, or its implications.

It might also be good to recognize that our sources--the letters and the biographies--are limited in scope and information. We need a scholarly edition of the collected letters and a scholarly biography, which would not be dependent upon sales in the public market nor upon the cooperation of the family members who own the letters.

My thoughts on Tolkien's characterization of his female characters I will save for a different thread. (Yes, there is still room for original analysis of this topic.) If Lush has her way with me, I suppose I will be prodded eventually to produce that thread. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Bethberry

[ March 27, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Lalaith]

letter probably can stand as some sort of signal of his thought during the initial years of writing LOTR.

Bethberry you are quite right on this point. I also concur with your wish for a scholarly edition of Tolkien's letters etc.
Just to get this thread REALLY tangental, I've got somewhere an interview with a woman who was an au pair to Tolkien's children when she was young. I seem to remember she had some very interesting things to say about Tolkien's domestic attitudes and so on, some of which might be relevant... If I can only find it...

[Morwen Tindomerel]

Alas yes, the teaching of literature and history and anything else you care to name has become *very* politicized here in the states.

And agreed, a man born in 1892 is bound to have held attitudes we today would consider sexist. What this means in literary terms is he would cast his female characters in more or less traditional roles.

In addition he was consciously imitating the style of the legends and literature of the Dark and Middle Ages which for the most part, cast women in the traditional roles of lover, wife and mother, though there was also the occasional Shield Maiden or Enchantress. Tolkien include one each of the two latter in LotR, (Eowyn and Galadriel).

LotR consists of a dangerous quest and a number of battles, activities in which women would not figure prominently in either ancient Europe or early 20th c. England. The Silmarillion on the other hand included far more domestic settings, and thus women featured more prominently again in their traditional roles but this does *not* preclude them being strong characters.

Luthen Tinuviel is no warrior-princess but she's no passive lady-love either! Instead of languishing in her treehouse prison until her love returns to save her she escapes, rescues *him* and they carry on together as full partners in the quest, he handles the swordplay, she takes care of the sorcery.

Idril Celebrindal is barely seen in the published Silmarilion but in the early draft seen in 'Lost Tales' she is not only a counsellor of her father the King but actually takes up a sword in defense of her city during the final battle and prowls its streets searching for wandering survivors and sending them down the way of escape she's had built.

It should perhaps be mentioned that the earliest stories featuring these spirited ladies were apparently written about the time of the First World War. In fact it's my understanding, from HoME, that much of the Silmarillion material predates the LotR.

[Lalaith]

I didn't know that about Idril. Thanks for that. And don't forget your namesake, Morwen...who I think was one of Tolkien's most intriguing female characters.
I would actually quibble about your point, however, of women not having strong roles in the literature of Tolkien's sources. There were an awful lot of women appearing in old Norse literature and poetry, and some of them were damn scary, I can tell you. Very few 'lady-loves', actually.
The Finnish Kalevala, too, had very strong female characters, although of a different and more 'enchantress' type nature.
The lady-love prototype came in during the high-mediaeval period of literature. Tolkien certainly looked at this era (re his translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight) but his main period of interest was earlier.

[lindil]

In fact it's my understanding, from HoME, that much of the Silmarillion material predates the LotR.

It does, pretty mucg everything in HoME I-V excepting the latter work on the Lays in III.

Also a few points/sources that may not have been mentioned:

Laws and Customes among the Eldar: therein in [ somwhere !] we read that women of the Eldar could fight quite nicely, but rarely did unless difending their homes or in an emergency.

Also healers tended not to fight, as it detracted from their ability to heal on a psychic/energetic sort of level it seems.

The very first quote in the 'gems from the Letters' thread: bears on 'Galadriel as Amazon' in Aman.

Another example of prominent women are the Haladin and Haleth.

Personally i found Helen's submarine analogy to be applicable, if only on a sub-concious sort of level for JRRT. Aslo as regards Arwen in the FotR, I am sure Aragorn would be as displeased by the idea as Elrond. It would be crazy. Not because she could not have held her own, but because it would confuse the heck out of poor Aragorn, and possibly Arwen too.

Males were most suitable in the fellowship for different reasons in each race, but they all boil down to the same set of generalized gender roles. Generalizations, not absolutes, as Eowyn plainly shows in the slaying of the Lord of the Ringwraiths.

lindil bows out ...

[Morwen Tindomerel]

"I didn't know that about Idril. Thanks for that. And don't forget your namesake, Morwen...who I think was one of Tolkien's most intriguing female characters."

No one could accuse Morwen Eledhwen of weakness, to much pride perhaps. And of course she was under the influence of Morgoth's curse when she made her worst decisions.

"I would actually quibble about your point, however, of women not having strong roles in the literature of Tolkien's sources. There were an awful lot of women appearing in old Norse literature and poetry, and some of them were damn scary, I can tell you."

Oh yeah! What about that Gudrun, ready to sacrifice her sons lives to get her revenge?

My favorite has always been Signy, sister of Sigurd. Torn between loyalty to father and brothers, (murdered by her own husband) and to husband and children she solves her dilemma by helping her surviving brother avenge their family, (even bearing him a son to fight beside him!) but chosing to die with her husband and their children.

The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is cast very much in the pattern of a Courtly Romance with the conventions of the 'Fair Unknown' and cruel father keeping the lovers apart. I hate the Tale precisely because it makes Arwen out to be such a passive ninny. *Some* heroines of Romance are like that but most are pretty tough ladies, running their own castles or roaming the countryside as a Damsels Errant, searching for a knight to right a wrong or undertake an adventure she knows of and guiding and advising him every step of the way once she's found him.

What I meant was while both Northern legend and Medieval Romances have strong women characters they express their strength in traditional female roles, wife, mother, mistress, sorceress and only rarely shield maiden, just like Tolkien's women.

[Lalaith]

I know one should let sleeping threads lie, but then I found this and it made me laugh so much I just can't resist posting the link... http://www.subreality.com/marysue/nmaall.htm

[Aratlithiel]

Oh, GOD, Lalaith! That was just too funny! If you try very hard to picture the movie characters speaking these lines it makes it that much funnier. Thank you so much for the chuckles. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Belethcuwen]

Hello, I'm new here,
I think Morwen is right, Arwen is made to look a bit of a ninny in The tAle of Aragorn and Arwen. The only reason I like it is because it lets you know a little more of their background.
My favourite female in all the books has to be Eowyn, she's such a strong character, and very inspiring!
Belethcuwen

there should be more females in the films and the girls should not just be cute they should be dangerous and strong!!!!! [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[Novhloke]

One reason i think that there was no female is because everyone in the fellowship had high stature or rank, And no kind would send his duaghter to a council of Elrond, but they would send thier son, why? Perhaps to prove the strength of the nation. But the fellow 'Encounterd' females on the way, and quite powerfull and mystical and cool ones, Galadriel, Eowyen, and who else? So perhaps the reason is that Tolkien that it would be best perhaps to not create a female presense in the book unless encounterd, and if encounterd it would not be forgotten.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

It's reality, men are the warriors. Face it!

This comment was a while back, but I only just saw it now, and had a very strong reaction, so here's what I think:
You are making an extreme generalization. I have friends who are guys (that could also disprove the quote about girls and guys not being able to be just friends, as I do know that I will never be in any way involved with any of them), and I can beat all of them up easily. What you are saying is like saying all girls who try to fight use their "girl-slap". I have never "girl-slapped" anyone in my life, and know that (*somewhere*) there are other girls who understand that a punch is certainly more effective. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] As to the menstrual cycle, as many said before, there are many women whom it doesn't affect at all. I do not think that there should have ben a female in the Fellowship, but am feeling very feministic just now.

[Cibbwin]

Hey, don't feel bad, I am feeling feministic, too, and I'm a guy. As I've said countless times before, there is nothing more beautiful to me than a woman with a sword, so... you get the idea. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Earendil Halfelven]

I also think that the reason Tolkien didn't put any women into the actual Fellowship was because he was following Medieval tradition. The style of speaking in the LOTR trilogy follows the Old English style. And, in medieval times, women just didn't go on quests or do anything outside of the home. To fully make LOTR realistic and to seem as if it could have existed, Tolkien needed to have followed medieval tradition. And that still happens in today's military. In the US Army ( I don't know about other country's military) women cannot join frontline units. Thats just the way things are. And besides, I think if Tolkien would have worried about being politically correct and making sure LOTR didn't offend anyone because of the way it was written, it wouldn't be as good.

[Morwen Tindomerel]

It should be pointed out that in the Middle Ages there was not the firm line between home and public life that exists today.

Craftsmen and merchants worked out of their homes and their wives were very much a part of the family business, in fact some guilds allowed them membership. Noblewomen managed the family estates, took over their husbands' official duties in their absence, and on occasion commanded military actions in defense of home and family. Some women, both common and gentle, even accompanied their men on crusade.

This is not to say Earendil is wrong, he's absolutely right in saying that women's role was primarily domestic, just that the domestic sphere was rather wider in those days than 'Children, Church and Kitchen.

[Lyra Greenleaf]

It's reality, men are the warriors. Face it!

(This was Durelin, a long time ago.)
Well, I'll just make Mara abandon her quest for the Ainereg and go back to the kitchen shall I?

I think that women may not be as strong as men but they can fight the same with skill, thats to do with practice and oppurtunity. If, say, Legolas was female there's no reason SHE wouldn't be as good with a bow. Or knives. It's not like they go wrestling, is it? You wait till you get to Far Dereis Mai in the Wheel of time...

[Mitheithel]

I think that The Fellowship is the best as it is. And I agree with this submarine stuff, although this sounds a bit crazy [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

*wakes up topic* I don't think that there should be females in the fellowship, just that there could be.

I think that women may not be as strong as men

You're alking average, though. Elrond would be sure to find some much stronger than that [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

~Menelien

[Nyneve]

I agree with the person who said that not all male authors can't write female characters. Has anyone read the books Sabriel, Lirael, or Abhorsen by Garth Nix? The Female Characters are very strong in these stories. I a a girl.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Sometimes they just don't want to. I think that if Tolkien had reallly wanted to he could have had more women, but the story's great as it is, and he probably didn't feel it would anything to it. Also, Tolkien didn't live in a time as 'politically correct' as today. But even today, lots of things (like media images) still bring the stereotypes in and in.

~Menelien

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It's funny that amid all this talk of how few women there are in The Lord of the Rings nobody has mentioned Ioreth, Queen Berúthiel or Erendis. Admittedly none of them plays much of a role in Tolkien’s works, but I’m offering them up in defence of his ability to write female characters, and to make a point about dramatic necessity that seems so often to be missed. They are also all in their way breakers of the beautiful, noble and graceful mould from which so many people cheerfully assert Tolkien’s women to have been drawn, and which is often used as a stick with which to beat him. Éowyn is the exemplar of this, but I shall come to her later as she has already received a lot of attention here.

I shall begin with a character who ought to be familiar to all of us: Ioreth, the old wife from The Houses of Healing. Ioreth is neither beautiful nor wise; nor is she of noble blood, a shieldmaiden or possessed of any other rarified qualities: she's the archetypal old wife, inclined to be garrulous and sentimental, perhaps not possessed of great learning, but nonetheless very competent in her own sphere, remembering useful information such as where to find Kingsfoil, deemed unimportant by the scholarly or heroic men around her. She it is who remembers the fragment of folklore The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, which goes a long way towards proving Aragorn's legitimacy, coming as it does before he reveals either his skills or his lineage. Although she has a very small part to play, she is a believable and sensitively drawn character, with a clearly defined personality and world view; moreover she is a thoroughly ordinary person, who nonetheless has the power to help the great mythic figures of Aragorn and Gandalf, justifying, I might add, Gandalf's faith in apparently unimportant people. Tolkien also has her diffuse some of the grandiose atmosphere that has built up around Gandalf, Aragorn and Imrahil, as in this passage from The Houses of Healing:

And Gandalf, who stood by, said: 'Men may long remember your words, Ioreth! For there is hope in them. Maybe a king has indeed returned to Gondor; or have you not heard the strange tidings that have come to the City?'
'I have been too busy with this and that to heed all the crying and shouting,' she answered. 'All I hope is that those murdering devils do not come to this House and trouble the sick.'

In other words, while the great heroes of the saga have been doing noble and heroic things, people like Ioreth have been quietly and practically getting on with their jobs: she's every bit as important in her way as is Faramir, Aragorn or Éomer, and her implicit criticism of the saga-hero behaviour of her social betters is reminiscent of Éowyn's '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.' Tolkien criticises heroic and chivalric codes in some of his other works as well, notably in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son, only here, in the supposedly sexist Lord of the Rings he does so through the mouths of women.

Beruthiel is the perfect counter to the argument that there are no really bad women in Tolkien’s stories on the same level as Wormtongue or Saruman. Admittedly she doesn't appear in The Lord of the Rings itself save in passing, but her story illustrates the fact that not all of Tolkien’s women were noble and selfless: some could be really nasty.

Berúthiel seems very much a Miss Havisham character, remaining locked in a loveless house, hating all works of beauty and running a rather sinister secret service using her pet cats. She is clearly powerful, having the ability to communicate with her pets in order to spy on the people of Gondor, but she abuses that power and puts it to selfish uses. In building up mistrust between the people and the monarchy, as is implicit in King Tarannon’s action in setting her adrift with her cats, she imperils the whole Gondorian system of heroic personal leadership, doing perhaps as much damage as Gríma in the general scheme of things.

Erendis is the other side of the Arwen coin. Like the Evenstar she is left alone for long periods as her husband goes travelling (although unlike Aragorn, Aldarion is not sent on his travels by necessity), and probably because there is no earthly reason for his constant seafaring beyond simple wanderlust, and because her time is so much shorter than his (she is not of the line of Elros and therefore does not have the longevity of the line of the Kings), she becomes embittered and brings up her daughter to become an infamous queen. Here, parellels with Dickens’ miserable spinster are more obvious with the inclusion of the younger woman brought up in bitterness and becoming a scourge for men (although in Tolkien’s story this is not intentionally a part of her upbringing).

All of this is quite believable given the situation. These women are not evil, but are, no doubt, driven by the restrictive rôles they are forced to play in the society of myth into petty and selfish behaviour. These characters date from across the development of The Lord of the Rings, the latest being from a tale composed in the mid-1960s, which may indicate Tolkien’s discomfort with female characters before then, but is, to my mind, not particularly significant.

Now I come to my point about dramatic necessity. We have to ask ourselves whether at any point in Tolkien’s stories his narrative ever requires that a woman be present without his including one: what would have been the dramatic advantage of having a woman along with the Fellowship? Essentially she would be unsexed as Lady Macbeth desires to be because she would be in a situation demanding only fortitude and combat skill (like it or not, in the world of Middle-Earth, these are not traits that it’s easy for a woman to acquire, least of all one with enough spare time to go gallivanting half-way across the continent on a quest). Éowyn could have managed it, but she would have caused problems with her unrequited love for Aragorn. Given Tolkien’s view on the relations between men and women given in Letter #43, he would have regarded some sort of awkward entanglement as an inevitable side-effect of taking a woman young enough to fight along with a lot of men into the middle of nowhere (so ludicrously taboo in Tolkien’s young day that it would probably never even have crossed his mind). He wrote to his son Michael in the letter to which I referred above:

In this fallen world the ‘friendship’ that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous, romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This ‘friendship’ has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life, when sex cools down it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a ‘friendship’ quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by ‘falling in love’.

Here, then, we have a primary motive for the author in keeping his male and female characters separate, and since he was concerned with the historically predominantly masculine practice of quests and warfare it’s understandable that he left the women somewhere safe and sent the men out to run all the risks. To me Éowyn is an indication that Tolkien believed that women were quite capable of taking on military rôles, but also believed that no man should readily allow them to do so. We can hardly blame him for chivalrous impulses, since he grew up in a society that was forever reminding young men that it was their duty and responsibility to protect women and children. To an old boy of an Edwardian private school the idea of allowing women to place themselves in any sort of physical danger when there were men standing idle would be unthinkable, hence Aredhel defies Turgon in order to ride forth to her doom and Éowyn defies her uncle and his warriors in riding off to war. The men are absolved from their duty to keep the women from harm by their being ignored or deceived: had they simply allowed women into harm’s way they would have been at fault within their own system of ethics.

In my opinion, Tolkien was actually rather forward-looking in his view of women. Given that he was heavily influenced by the overwhelmingly male-dominated sagas of early-medieval northern Europe and brought up in the profoundly patriarchal Edwardian England, his cheerful admission that women are as much capable of heroism and wisdom as men (he was 26 when women were first given the vote in Britain) is remarkable. He casts women in a variety of parts: ruler and seeress, servant, mythical princess bride, warrior and mother. The fact that he avoids the now horribly clichéd ‘warrior princess’ is to my mind a strength rather than a weakness. It would be all too easy to throw in a couple of stock characters like the film version of Arwen just to spice up the plot (although probably not quite so easy for the Professor), but he still manages to throw in the vulnerable yet skilled shield-maiden who is their template. It would be simple to show all the women as ethereal and perfect, but he throws in the insufferable and steely Lobelia Sackville-Baggins and the frothy yet competent Ioreth. He never compromises his plot or the internal consistency of his world by bringing forth Athena-like swordmaidens from polite and patriarchal societies, or demure and submissive helpmeets from tough lands like Rohan. During the War of the Ring he deems it a woman’s rightful place to govern the people of Rohan, a job with great responsibility attached to it and requiring great skills of leadership; a task for which, in my opinion, Éowyn is not very well suited on account of her youth.

In these days of equal opportunities for all, in which women are serving in the front line of battle and playing any part in society that suits them it is perhaps more difficult to understand a world in which there are set tasks for men and women. To many people it seems unfair that the women are left to fend for themselves while the men fight the battles, but what of the man unsuited to war: his place according to this world is on the battlefield, and only accusations of cowardice will attach to him if he remains where he is most useful. A woman who steals away to war and does well will win renown, but what of the man who stays at home and achieves great things there? The chances are that he will be forgotten. That’s the problem with the world of saga, myth and fable: it simply isn’t fair. It has a place for everyone and everyone in their allotted place, which is so fundamentally opposed to our system, in which (officially) nobody has an allotted place at all, that we are bound to have trouble with it. However, to regard it as an authorial weakness that a writer remains consistent throughout his work, or to think that he leaves things out of his writing because he cannot write about them, is to my mind overly simplistic and rather uncharitable. We might as well say that Tolkien couldn’t write about children, or cows, since there are so few of the one and none of the other in The Lord of the Rings. As we have established, we all appreciate the world that he created, and different gender rôles, or a closer concentration on domestic life, which would have been necessary in order to include more women within his reality, would have given his work a different tone, perhaps even changed its basic nature. I’m not sure that any of us would really have wanted that.