🧝Arwen: why i hate her

[Ravenna]

I don't think character should be measured on heroic warrior like fighting, but in a midievil - like setting, character WAS. Faramir was looked down upon for a lonnnng time simply because he was mroe peace loving than his brother.

I don't feel that this really applies in Arwen's case. It was a standard applied to men. In fact in many cases strong willed, warrior type women were not really appreciated in mediaeval times, (with a few exceptions suchas Eleanor of Aquitaine). Femininity was deemed to be the most desirable aspect, I mean, even intelligent women were scorned , at least publicly, right up to comparatively recent times, why else did female writers have to use male pen names in order to get published?

Feminism is one thing but militant feminism is quite another. Arwen certainly gets what she wants in the end, but instead of fighting physically, she uses passive resistance, she supports and encourages Aragorn. Why should she have to show herself equal to Aragorn physically in order to be considered worthy of him? Maybe he didn't want a wife who might take a sword to him if he upset her

By the time Aragorn became King, I would have thought he'd had enough strife and violence to last even his extended lifetime, maybe he wanted someone with whom he could relax and just be himself.
I certainly don't consider myself to be equal to men in all ways, certainly not physically, but I do expect to be treated as an equal intellectually, and I certainly don't feel that as a stay at home wife and mother I am less worthy than my husband who goes off to work each day. I do my bit just as Arwen did hers. It doesn't mean she didn't do anything, just that the things she did weren't the type of things that attract a lot of attention.

 

[Elfhelm25]

She was delicate and feminine and not a fighter.

But what does she DO ? What does she think, what emotions does she ever express, besides a few expressionless sentences here and there ? She spun some cloth....well, that's a start. She's doing something at least. Then what ? ............

I think I got the quote thing working. Excccelent.

Also, if you think about it, it was a bit like sewing her wedding dress in front of her father. It says it was wrought in secret, doesn't it? Or perhaps I'm mixing it up with something else. . .I wonder if her father knew what she was sewing.

This is interesting. I wonder.....

In fact in many cases strong willed, warrior type women were not really appreciated in mediaeval times

This is true, but Tolkien seemed to value a strong will in his female characters. ( Luthien, Galadriel, Eowyn, my semi goddess-wink wink ). Therefore I don't think Tolkien's work was 100% midievil. Therefore, Arwen paled completely in comparision!

Why should she have to show herself equal to Aragorn physically in order to be considered worthy of him?

There are more ways to be active than by sword alone. Lots of important matters in war are dealt with behind the scenes. Arwen was about as active as a rock. Ok, a beautiful rock.

I certainly don't feel that as a stay at home wife and mother I am less worthy than my husband who goes off to work each day.

together with

Feminism grates on my nerves, for one thing, even when it has a point.

and as well

Submissive used to be considered a virtue, and probably still should be.

I agree that a stay at home parent ( male or female ) is completely respectable and underrated ( My mum, my rock, is a prime example . ) I think ( in quick words as this is slightly off topic), that many ppp misjudge feminism as bra burning, male bashing, housewife scorning women. The true essence of feminism is the freedom to choose a life for oneself, without the hinderance of being born into a certain body. The ideal of feminine and masculine is lovely, hell, my mum would love to be a supportive wife. Sadly, it is an ideal, a lovely, middle class, suburban ideal that a large majority of men and women can never live up to due to economy, unfaithful relationships, and poverty. Dependance and submissiveness are lovely in ideals, in reality however, they are far less lovely. Sorry for my off topic-ness.

Point being, Arwen was still waaayyy boring compared to all other female characters in tolkien, whom I found quite interesting, amusing, or uplifting in their own diverse ways. And as Arwen was basically the counter to Aragorn, she fell incredibly short in my opinion. Whew ! A mouthful.

 

[Rhiannon]

Elfhelm is on my good list

Arwen was also, I believe, a late addition to the story. Tolkien added her to 1) provide a love interest for Aragorn and 2) to echo Luthien. She wasn't important enough to him to spend more time on her character. Eowyn, on the other hand, is not only much more developed, but was a much older character in the evolution of the story. I think Eowyn mattered to Tolkien himself in a way Arwen did not.

 

[Ithrynluin]

Here are some interesting tidbits from the Letters:

Letter #154
But in this story it is supposed that there may be certain rare exceptions or accommodations (legitimately supposed? there always seem to be exceptions); and so certain 'mortals', who have played some great part in Elvish affairs, may pass with the Elves to Elvenhome. Thus Frodo ([color=sky blue]by the express gift of Arwen[/color]*) and Bilbo, and eventually Sam (as adumbrated by Frodo); and as a unique exception Gimli the Dwarf, as friend of Legolas and 'servant' of Galadriel.

*It is not made explicit how she could arrange this. She could not of course just transfer her ticket on the boat like that! For any except those of Elvish race 'sailing West' was not permitted, and any exception required 'authority', and she was not in direct communication with the Valar, especially not since her choice to become 'mortal'. What is meant is that it was Arwen who first thought of sending Frodo into the West, and put in a plea for him to Gandalf (direct or through Galadriel, or both), and she used her own renunciation of the right to go West as an argument. Her renunciation and suffering were related to and enmeshed with Frodo's : both were parts of a plan for the regeneration of the state of Men. Her prayer might therefore be specially effective, and her plan have a certain equity of exchange. No doubt it was Gandalf who was the authority that accepted her plea. The Appendices show clearly that he was an emissary of the Valar, and virtually their plenipotentiary in accomplishing the plan against Sauron. He was also in special accord with Cirdan the Ship-master, who had surrendered to him his ring and so placed himself under Gandalf's command. Since Gandalf himself went on the Ship there would be so to speak no trouble either at embarking or at the landing.

This certainly adds a little bit to Arwen's 'greatness'.

Another thing in Arwen's favour:

Letter #246
That appears to have been the judgement of Gandalf and Aragorn and of all who learned the full story of his journey. Certainly nothing would be concealed by Frodo! But what Frodo himself felt about the events is quite another matter.
He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt (III 224-5);1 he was restored to sanity and peace. But then he thought that he had given his life in sacrifice: he expected to die very soon. But he did not, and one can observe the disquiet growing in him. [color=sky blue]Arwen was the first to observe the signs, and gave him her jewel for comfort, and thought of a way of healing him.[/color] Slowly he fades 'out of the picture', saying and doing less and less. I think it is clear on reflection to an attentive reader that when his dark times came upon him and he was conscious of being 'wounded by knife sting and tooth and a long burden' (III 268) it was not only nightmare memories of past horrors that afflicted him, but also unreasoning self-reproach: he saw himself and all that he done as a broken failure. 'Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same, for I shall not be the same.' That was actually a temptation out of the Dark, a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned as a 'hero', not content with being a mere instrument of good. And it was mixed with another temptation, blacker and yet (in a sense) more merited, for however that may be explained, he had not in fact cast away the Ring by a voluntary act: he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it. 'It is gone for ever, and now all is dark and empty', he said as he wakened from his sickness in 1420.
'Alas! there are some wounds that cannot be wholly cured', said Gandalf (III 268) – not in Middle-earth. Frodo was sent or allowed to pass over Sea to heal him – if that could be done, before he died. He would have eventually to 'pass away': no mortal could, or can, abide for ever on earth, or within Time. So he went both to a purgatory and to a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and in greatness, spent still in Time amid the natural beauty of 'Arda Unmarred', the Earth unspoiled by evil.
Bilbo went too. No doubt as a completion of the plan due to Gandalf himself. Gandalf had a very great affection for Bilbo, from the hobbit's childhood onwards. His companionship was really necessary for Frodo's sake – it is difficult to imagine a hobbit, even one who had been through Frodo's experiences, being really happy even in an earthly paradise without a companion of his own kind, and Bilbo was the person that Frodo most loved. (Cf III 252 lines 12 to 21 and 263 lines 1-2.)2 But he also needed and deserved the favour on his own account. He bore still the mark of the Ring that needed to be finally erased : a trace of pride and personal possessiveness. Of course he was old and confused in mind, but it was still a revelation of the 'black mark' when he said in Rivendell (III 265) 'What's become of my ring, Frodo, that you took away?'; and when he was reminded of what had happened, his immediate reply was: 'What a pity! I should have liked to see it again'. As for reward for his pan, it is difficult to feel that his life would be complete without an experience of 'pure Elvishness', and the opportunity of hearing the legends and histories in full the fragments of which had so delighted him.
[color=sky blue]It is clear, of course, that the plan had actually been made and concerted (by Arwen, Gandalf and others) before Arwen spoke.[/color] But Frodo did not immediately take it in;

 

[Rhiannon]

Really those just increase my feeling that Arwen is basically a plot convenience...

 

[Inderjit S]

May your hemorrhoids shrink without surgery.

Just like to make another post. I realise that my first posts in this thread seemed to be pretty pro-Arwen but I was just correcting inane arguments. I am neither wholly against or for Arwen, but I adore Éowyn.

Why do I like Éowyn? Mainly, because she embodies (or nearly everything) that I would ever want in a woman. Her individualistic attitude, her rebellion against the narrow minded opinions of Men, her belief in herself, her strength of will and character, her stubborn disposition, her valour in standing up to the lord of the Nazgûl for the love of Théoden Ednew and her grace, dignity and kindness, which at times shined through her sexy, callous exterior. (Well she was callous to Faramir when she first met him, which I found annoying because Faramir was a beautiful and compassionate Man.)

Not that I’m saying Éowyn was perfect, far from it, she had her inherent flaws, but to me flaws are more attractive then perfection because to me, perfection is inhuman. (In the sense that it contradicts the very nature of Humans, imperfection)

Éowyn of course was at times petulant, even foolish. Gandalf’s words to Éomer about Éowyn’s discernment in regards to Théoden’s illness and senility and the state of House of Eorl are echoed when Éowyn states;

“And yet it is good beyond all that I dared hope in the dark days, when it seemed that the House of Eorl had sunk in honour less then any shepherds cot”

Seemed to me to be rather petulant, though I can still sympathise with her anger at the demise in the health and state of mind of Théoden, and her inability to do anything about it. At least Théodred and Éomer could go to war (That is when Saruman’s intentions were known and his soldiers began to attack Rohan, Rohan was not at war with Mordor, as Éomer tells Aragorn despite the theft of their horses by Orks of Barad-dûr).

But Rohan I think Rohan was a lot like Gondor became in it’s latter days, as Beregond, Faramir and Denethor state, that warriors are held in high esteem, and prowess in battle are valued over nobility and wisdom. It must have been frustrating for Éowyn to sit in Edoras whilst Theoden became more and more senile and the pride of the House of Eorl withered.

Yet, Éowyn seems to lose all hope when she realises that Aragorn will never lover her, and to me here we can see her weakness (which she tries her best to hide) and you are struck by a sense of tragedy, this poor woman will never be loved by the Man of her dreams. Though once can see a sense of fickleness in regard to her love for Aragorn, I think she loved his lordliness more, and I think that she may have looked to him as a substitute for the diminishing House of Eorl, and he was the means by which she could feel high and queenly, someone in authority “and you wished to have renown and glory and be lifted far above the mean things that crawl on the earth” as Faramir rather cynically puts it and at times she can be childish (when she requests for her to look Eastwards so she could be facing Aragorn, I couldn’t help but think “Aww, bless how CUTE!” yet she was a “lady high and valiant and have yourself won renown that shall not be forgotten” and “but she, born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours” and “Few other griefs amid the ill chances of the world have more bitterness and shame for a Man’s heart then to behold the love of a lady so fair and brave that cannot be returned”. What I like most about Éowyn is the complexity of her character, not only is she the ’cold lady of the Rohhirm’, but also the ‘wild shield maiden’, but at the same time she is strong, dignified and brave and I find such things more beautiful then physical beauty. You do not have to be pretty to be beautiful and Éowyn for her grace and dignity is to me the most beautiful woman in the book, I do not desire the grace of Arwen or beauty of Galadriel or the hairy feet of Rosie.

Interestingly, Tolkien originally intended for Aragorn and Éowyn to get together (HoME 7; Treason of Isengard) and he also panned out several tragic endings to their love-affair but in the end he decided that Aragorn was to old and grim for Éowyn. (She comments on his grimness after he looks in the Palantír and is on his way to the Paths of the Dead) I think that having Arwen as the woman who ends up with Aragorn is more satisfactory for several reasons (Him going out in the wild, his perseverance in becoming King of Gondor, the union of the line of the Half-Elven) and also because I think that Faramir and Éowyns love is more true then Éowyn and Aragorn‘s. “But now, were you sorrow less, without fear or any lack were you blissful Queen of Gondor, still I would love you Éowyn” *sniff* (In the same way that Arwen was similar to Lúthien, Éowyn was similar to Morwen, her grand-mother, who married Thengel. (The Appendix and ‘Of Dwarves and Men’ (HoME 12) tell us that Thengel dwelt in Gondor for a long time, because he did not get along with his greedy father, Fengel.)

In regards to feminism, I am in the rather unusual position of being a male Feminist. Though I dislike ‘radical feminism’ I sympathise with the views put forward by ’Marxist feminists’ and to a lesser extent ’liberal’ and ‘black feminists’ and I support the ideas of independence and self-dependence that Feminism promotes and the rights of women in a (by and large) patriarchal society. (Though at times my feminists friends can get annoying, whenever I say something stupid they say its “just like a Man” I really think that their movement can do without the paranoia about any idiotic statement that a Man makes. Everyone makes idiotic remarks, not just Men, and it is not some kind of patriarchal, sexist, machoisitc conspiracy). To me feminism is not about marching and voicing your disgust with Men, but about standing up for yourself, gaining a voice and taking pride in the fact that you are a woman. (Though one could argue that you don’t have to be a feminist to believe in those things, that is what in my eyes feminism stands for.)

 

[Rhiannon]

Inderjit is also on my good list

Great comments, Inderjit...that's about as profound as I can get right now, but I did appreciate them.

 

[Legolas_lover12]

wow do u know how long it took me to read that whole thread? and inderjit is on my good list too.

arwen...well like we've sed she justs sits at home and has HOPE that everything will be ok. and yes she's an elven princess. who cares? not me. she never DID anything. i dont think that just being born makes u better than everyone else.

feminists arent bad. they just want equal rights for women. yes some of them are paranoid... but ....well read everything Inderjit wrote and thats my post. gosh i finally read everything and inderjit takes everything im gonna say lol. ok more from me later

 

[HLGStrider]

If what you're saying about feminism is true, however, none of the people thought of as feminists are feminists. The only true feminists are those who don't talk about it or attack men, but just lead their lives the way their morals, talents, wishes, etc tell them to and do what they need to do. However, these aren't what we see as far as feminism goes. I think it has become a tainted word that won't escape its taint, and that you need to find a new word.

I remain and will always remain annoyed by Arwen as a literary character because she is plain and simple dull. Kind of like Jane from Pride and Prejudice.

Same author. Different character and book: Elenor, Sense and Sensibility (admits to only having watched the movie but I've also watched the entire eight tape Pride and Prejudice).

I think that is the better comparison. Eowyn isn't quite a Marianne, so don't think I'm making that comparison, but there is quite a bit of Elenor in Arwen. . .

We know that she is sweet, lets people push her around, and...that's it.

We know that she is sweet and does not defy her father. That's about it.

But what does she DO ? What does she think, what emotions does she ever express, besides a few expressionless sentences here and there ?

We don't know. We REALLY don't know. Last sentence includes a contradiction so I'm going to change it to "what does she ever express besides a few emotionless sentences here and there?" Is that what you meant?

The last we can list:
Kindness, fidelity, strength of will, patience, foresight, and hope.

Pretty good for the limited text.

This is true, but Tolkien seemed to value a strong will in his female characters. ( Luthien, Galadriel, Eowyn, my semi goddess-wink wink )

From Ithy's quotes, I think he valued Arwen as well.

Sadly, it is an ideal, a lovely, middle class, suburban ideal that a large majority of men and women can never live up to due to economy, unfaithful relationships, and poverty.

Aren't econmony and poverty the same arguements? Unfaithfulness is obviously true. I think I could debate the economy issue pretty well (Did you hear the poverty rate is now set at 100,000 dollars a year for a family with three kids?. . .well, in a canidate debate canidates were asked to set the poverty level. The lowest anyone went was 60,000. My family is at 50,000 with soon to be five kids and one parent in the work force and my mom says we could survive on a lot less. . .brother. . .). I think a lot of women are led to believe they have to work due to this arguement when it really isn't true. There are exceptions and a LOT of single moms, but in general, money isn't a good reason for a mother to work.

Dependance and submissiveness are lovely in ideals, in reality however, they are far less lovely. Sorry for my off topic-ness.

Dependence I never mentioned. Submissiveness I did, and I stand by it (and dependence to a father I definitely would until a girl is of age).

Really those just increase my feeling that Arwen is basically a plot convenience...

A lot of things are a plot convenience. I will go as far as to say that Tolkien didn't take the time to fill Arwen out, not because she was boring but because as the plot goes she was important only in name. There was no need for Arwen in the plot. She was simply the end of the line for Aragorn. Now, Aragorn needed a reward, an end of the line, more than just a crown. He needed a lady love. To introduce Arwen in more detail, after JRRT decided not to use Eowyn, would've taken away time from the plot. It would've changed the character of the book. I don't like that it is this way.I wish he'd had more time and more space to work on her, just as I wish we had more background information on Aragorn's early life, a better idea of what the heck happened to the Blue Wizards, etc.

But he didn't, and so we are left with an Arwen we really have to guess about.

To me she's similar to the children I always make my characters have at the end of a book. To me children are a reward and a wonderful thing, and that the characters have them in the end is a plus for me that makes me feel all warm inside. However, I rarely develop them beyond names and comments such as "They had their mother's eyes and tongue and their father's patient nature" or something vague like that.

However, I think it would annoy me to no end if someone attacked my character's children as being bland, dull stereotypes only put there for plot or something or other and started comparing them to another child in the plot that had a key roll.

Arwen didn't have a key roll. That doesn't mean she didn't have worth.

 

[Lúthien Séregon]

I personally liked Eowyn a LOT more than Arwen. Arwen for me was one of those characters who was called great or wise, but showed no signs of it. She practically allowed her fate to be governed for her, by her father. In terms of plot, she only acted as a reward for Aragorn. Something in the Appendices seems to imply that her marriage to Aragorn was to symbolize the life of Luthien, whom Arwen was almost identical to:

“So many have said,” she answered gravely. “Yet her name is not mine. Though maybe my doom will be not unlike hers.”

I’ve always had the idea that that was what Arwen was: simply a metaphor for the tale of Luthien that Tolkien always came back to. As a result, she doesn’t have a whole lot of depth to her, as Luthien’s life had already had a lot of impact on the Elves, and therefore all Arwen had to do was simply be her likeness in order to be held in high regard. At least Luthien actually aided Beren in the recapturing of the Silmaril - IMO, that's more of a sign of love than simply sitting around waiting for Aragorn to succeed.

Eowyn, on the other hand, was a woman with free-willed spirit and plenty of assertiveness. She knew what she wanted, and she wasn’t going to simply let her fate be governed by her situation. She was flawed, certainly, but that just made her all the more interesting. She had that conflict that she dealt with, and actually evolved in some way, as Elgee has noted ( Coldness & Defiance -> Despair & Sickness -> Happiness & Love ). That indicates a lot of strength, and not just of the warrior-kind either. Changing is a growth of the spirit. It is those flaws that trigger growth. So in a way, Eowyn showed signs of being stronger than Arwen both externally and internally, through facing her battles physically and changing to at last find happiness.

But Arwen didn’t change at all. She didn’t really have to face anything. She remained essentially the same character, which is never interesting text-wise. As a result, she just seems so fragile. Even when she was just sitting there, she had to have a canopy. What kind of character does not show any signs of growth and has a lot of depth at the same time?

The only true feminists are those who don't talk about it or attack men, but just lead their lives the way their morals, talents, wishes, etc tell them to and do what they need to do.

That's so true, it is unfortunate that the term "feminism" has been equated with man-bashing, etc.

(and dependence to a father I definitely would until a girl is of age).

What if a girl is in a position where she has no father?

 

[Inderjit S]

If what you're saying about feminism is true, however, none of the people thought of as feminists are feminists

Really? You're stereotyping for no good reason. Some of the women who march, who shout anti-Male rhetoric are feminists in their own way, and just because they care to voice their disgust with Men doesn't mean they reject the positive (In my eyes) ideals that feminism promotes.

I think it has become a tainted word that won't escape its taint, and that you need to find a new word.

It has become tainted because a lot of Men are unwilling to support the promotion of women's rights as well as any negative effect women marching for freedom or being viciously anti-Men. The media can, naturally, perpetuate the problem, just like the media can perpetuate the threat posed to America by "terrorists", whether Communists or the neo-terrorist threats from the Middle-East. (The fact that when the "Commies" were the "threat" you were supporting these "Afghans etc." and their atrocities as well as many other corrupt governments is a political paradox that seems to have been lost on the patriotic American media.)

A lot of these extremist Feminists may have had negative experiences with Men in the past (abusive fathers, rape victims etc) and so they may feel an revulsion towards Men that they may find hard to shake off.

I think a lot of women are led to believe they have to work due to this argument when it really isn't true

A lot of Women work because they want to not because of some subliminal government messages. Everyone has their own opinion on how "wealthy" they are and want to be. Some women are forced to work because they need the money, some for the pride and pleasure of having a job and some just to bring in that little bit more for the family.

Facts are of course, theory-dependent and circumstantial to the persons situation. What the government defines as poverty another person may define as affluence or vice-versa.

If any of you are interested in Tolkien's views on women etc, then he is this *lengthy* quote from Letter #43; Letters of Tolkien

Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. And then things are going to happen: and they may be very painful and harmful, if things go wrong. Particularly if the young man only wanted a temporary guiding star and divinity (until he hitches his waggon to a brighter one), and was merely enjoying the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with a titillation of sex – all quite innocent, of course, and worlds away from 'seduction'
You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests', or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don't be misled by the fact that they are more 'sentimental' in words – freer with 'darling', and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don't really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can 'reform' men.

Letter #43; Letters of Tolkien

And also on Faramir and Éowyn’s love:

Eowyn: It is possible to love more than one person (of the other sex) at the same time, but in a different mode and intensity. I do not think that Éowyn’s feelings for Aragorn really changed much; and when he was revealed as so lofty a figure, in descent and office, she was able to go on loving and admiring him. He was old, and that is not only a physical quality: when not accompanied by any physical decay age can be alarming or awe-inspiring. Also she was not herself ambitious in the true political sense. Though not a 'dry nurse' in temper, she was also not really a soldier or 'amazon', but like many brave women was capable of great military gallantry at a crisis.

Letter #244; Letters of Tolkien

 

[Elfhelm25]

Wow, everyone is coming up with strong and intelligent arguments ! it's really interesting to read. I for one make it known my actual sex ( for who really knows who's female and male online moohahhhahaha), and don't care to find out what sex other people are. To me it is one of the beauties of the internet- you have to listen to people's words and not have male or female have any influence on them.
Inderhit S is also on my "good"list!!!!!

think a lot of women are led to believe they have to work due to this argument when it really isn't true

To me this indiactes an ignorance of the world. It depends on what the situation of the woman you're talking to is. I doubt you could tell a woman who has been left alone with five young children to raise that the job of provider belongs to the man. Men are human, and so are women, and do not live up to these ideals. However, the children are the ones who suffer from these views. Just look at the number of one parent famalies WORLDWIDE. Every religion, every culture, has this as a reality despite their ideals and despite what they allow the world to see. Views such as where women belong( and where men belong) disable famalies when they are not lived up to . And it's not a rare occurence that should be swept under the carpet. That's life for a LOT of people. I agree, material possessions are considered success in my society, although there is much more to success. I call myself a humanist, not a feminist, but I hold to many values of feminism nonetheless. I don't think any human has the right to tell any other human other than themself what their place should be. What a person chooses, be it a stay at home PARENT, or to follow ambition, or to love and nurture, or attempt all three, is a ok to me. Masculinity and femininity are social creations. I know because I possess many "feminine" and "masculine" traits, as does everyone, if they admit it to themselves.

In response to Tolkien's thoughts on women, well, to each his or her own. Tolkien is brilliant but he's not perfect, as his thoughts prove. That's ok by me. I love reading what he says anyways. It doesn't mean his thoughts influence me more than my own.

Anyhoo, very interesting points of view on all sides, everyone !

 

[Rhiannon]

If what you're saying about feminism is true, however, none of the people thought of as feminists are feminists. The only true feminists are those who don't talk about it or attack men, but just lead their lives the way their morals, talents, wishes, etc tell them to and do what they need to do. However, these aren't what we see as far as feminism goes. I think it has become a tainted word that won't escape its taint, and that you need to find a new word.

Not true *resisting urge to hijack thread! Resisting!* Is there another thread we can go discuss our views on feminism legitimately?

Same author. Different character and book: Elenor, Sense and Sensibility (admits to only having watched the movie but I've also watched the entire eight tape Pride and Prejudice).

Elenor was also less interesting in the book. She had to be interesting in the movie because she was played by Emma Thompson.

 

[HLGStrider]

What if a girl is in a position where she has no father?

Then she obviously can't be dependant on him, so the question of dependency on a father is moot.

Really? You're stereotyping for no good reason. Some of the women who march, who shout anti-Male rhetoric are feminists in their own way, and just because they care to voice their disgust with Men doesn't mean they reject the positive (In my eyes) ideals that feminism promotes.

I'm stereotypinig for a very good reason. I know a lot of women who, by the standards of thirty years ago, are feminists, who hate feminism because of the above. Feminism has been hijacked by a vocal minority, that isn't going to let it go. Therefore, I return to my original point: Feminism irks me even when it has a point. It's like having to agree with a person you don't like.

A lot of Women work because they want to not because of some subliminal government messages.

I don't know where I mentioned the government. All I know is that I always hear this listed as a reason why women work when they don't want to work. . .by women, generally. So either they feel guilty for working (due to whatever reason) and are making it up, or they have been fooled, because generally, this isn't the case.

To me this indiactes an ignorance of the world.

I wasn't going to argue this worldwide, however. I think that there are going to be obvious exceptions world wide. In some countries it is still legally determined whether a woman can work or not. I think these should be limited out of the discussion. . .and obviously, things are different in less developed countries. I was speaking generally, and GASP about my own country. I don't know enough about economics whereever you live to be able to judge that. I know a bit about American economics, and I know that very few married women with an employeed husband should have to work. I think I said there were exceptions, but in most cases, it just isn't true.

I doubt you could tell a woman who has been left alone with five young children to raise that the job of provider belongs to the man.

Obviously, this is an exception. I think this even falls under your infidelity clause that I yeilded in the first bout. . .unless he died.

Just look at the number of one parent famalies WORLDWIDE.

One parent families are another obvious exception. However, it is sad how they are becoming the norm. It makes it much harder for women and DEPRIVES them of any choice.

I wonder if anyone else sees the rising divorce rate as a blow to women's freedom. I didn't until just now. . .

Masculinity and femininity are social creations.

This has been argued on the forum before. I believe that there is male and female spiritually as well as physically.

Elenor was also less interesting in the book. She had to be interesting in the movie because she was played by Emma Thompson.

My sister likes Elenor better, but that's because my sister exists to stamp out everything that isn't color coordinated. . .

I never said Arwen was as interesting as Eowyn. She was undoubtably not as interesting. I'm just saying she was worthy of Aragorn and that it is ridiculous how much Arwen bashing go's on.

 

[jimmyboy]

Masculinity and femininity are social creations.

This is the kind of thinking that comes about when people spend too much time in the university and/or watching too much TV, and not enough time in the real world.


After having lived, worked, and studied in a university environment for twelve years, I've come to the conclusion that every university should be strictly quarantined. Anything and anyone that goes within the boundaries of the campus, including all communication, written or otherwise, should be kept within the bounds of the institution. The only people that should be let off the campus for any reason at all are those who've proved that they have a grip on reality, and have learned to be un-selfish, humble, and sensible. Furthermore, nobody under the age of, say thirty, should be allowed to enroll, and even then only after they've demonstrated that they've lived a normal life (working, paying their bills, being law-abiding, etc) as much as they are able. This would prevent them being brainwashed and fooled by those foolish professors.

I'm telling you, universities are looney bins, and the inmates are running the asylum.

 

[Elfhelm25]

This is one of those topics that I find quickly gets out of hand. I prolly should have stopped it before my last post, so , sorry everyone for continued ramblings. I think it's safe to say that this is a topic with a lot of different views and that no one view is "right" and there are tons of analogies that can be used to argue either side. Basically, to put all my thoughts into one clear thought:all people deserve to have the right to decide what they want to do with their own life and not be told by anyone else what their "place " is. All people. Guys and girls. People can look upon it how they wish, but all in all people should get to decide for themselves. And that's all I'll say to that. Again, I apologise for getting way off topic and hope I've set myself completely straight. Thanks, and have a good day everyone!

 

[laurelindorenan]

Wow! Some really intelligent answers and discussions being made here! I think its really great how we can all discuss things like this. This has meandered a little away from the original point though. I have to say, in Eowyn vs. Arwen, I would pick Eowyn, definitely, although I can see that Aragorns heart is always with Arwen. I can also see that it is not just a superficial crush or infatuation, like Eowyn. Luckily she got over it, and lived most happily!

 

[Rhiannon]

I never said Arwen was as interesting as Eowyn. She was undoubtably not as interesting. I'm just saying she was worthy of Aragorn and that it is ridiculous how much Arwen bashing go's on.

Not half as ridiculous as the Eowyn-bashing I'm forced to endure, thank-you. Funny how they shut up when I respond, though- and in such arguments I'm generally the only one backing myself up with the text.

I want to discuss feminism, but not in here...is there another thread, or does someone need to go start one? Arwen's passivity annoys me, and this is tied to my ideas about feminism, but I feel talking about that would pull this thread even more off-topic than it is already, because it goes in to gender roles and all of that. I kind of feel we need to move out of the book section and into S&B for this.

 

[HLGStrider]

all people deserve to have the right to decide what they want to do with their own life and not be told by anyone else what their "place " is.

I think modern feminism isn't about this. . .and it wasn't what I was talking about.

Not half as ridiculous as the Eowyn-bashing I'm forced to endure, thank-you.

A lot of them just do it to get your goat. You know that, don't you?

Arwen's passivity annoys me, and this is tied to my ideas about feminism, but I feel talking about that would pull this thread even more off-topic than it is already, because it goes in to gender roles and all of that.

I think passivity is a personality trait. Some people are passive by nature. It seems to be one of those more common in females, but I wouldnt' call it a feminine trait. . . I know passive males.

There are people who will automatically do something when something comes up. There are wait and see people. There are people who accept that they can't do anything (which I'm still convinced Arwen couldn't have without violating everything she was). There people who being helpless would drive insane.

Etc.

I think Arwen would be a very good person to be with when there was nothing left to do but wait and see. She would keep you from going crazy. It probably helped Aragorn when the palace janitors were on strike.

 

[Rhiannon]

It's perfectly fine for passivity to be a personality trait- but it still annoys me. That is the title of this thread. I, personally, do not like Arwen because I, personally, am driven mad by her passivity.