What did boromir do in rivendell?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Given all that, and given that Tolkien nowhere proposes that any real or fictional society would be improved by females being given less voice than males, it is not worth making much of it. Those who try don’t get very far. Rightly so I think.

I didn't say it was, it was an observation not a criticism. If anything it serves to highlight the renewal brought by the return of the King and bringing home his Queen. I am sure somewhere, though I haven't located it about how part of the problem of Gondor was that it had become obsessed by it's past and thought less of the future. No doubt the darkening state of the world was a factor but it is noticeable that both Theodred and Boromir died childless at an age when most heirs of great houses are expected to have done their duty by posterity whatever their preferences. OF course their deaths allow a complete new order butI still think there is significance beyond that.

I think that Imrahil is the example of how Denethor might have been, both in his relationship to Faramir and his leadership. He recognises Aragorn instantly for what he is and cedes authority. His heir already has an heir at the time of the War of the Ring... a little triumph of hope against the darkness. Faramir of course becomes Prince mirroring his Uncle's rank and his fiefdom is the reclaimed Ithilien "the Garden of Gondor" as verdant as Minas Tirith is cold and stony.

I have never felt the lack of female characters even as a nine year old proto-feminist first exposed to the hobbit and by the time I got to LOTR Eowyn and Galadriel were sufficiently wonderful to compensate for a mere head count, and I find their artificial insertion into the films patronising and as ludicrous as if they say made the Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan a woman. Anyway this has been a long digression off the topic, my fault no doubt for mentioning something that occured to me in the course of another response.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

NB: T specifically tells us that Minas Tirith's women and children had been evacuated, except for the Healers, and boys like Bergil who served as runners. Presumably they're back by Elessar's coronation, although the only one mentioned is Ioreth's "kinswoman from the country;" but then that chapter doesn't name a single new character of any sort.*


*Actually, in draft the chapter did introduce a new character, Finduilas; Tolkien then changed her name to Arwen and ret-conned her into earlier chapters.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

… also in the sexist world of ME there were 3 Queens of Numenor who ruled.

Considering how many rulers of Númenor there were, that actually sounds very sexist.

Of course, Tolkien was basing his politics on the rules of kingship found in the real world. Should he be blamed for that?

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have never felt the lack of female characters even as a nine year old proto-feminist first exposed to the hobbit and by the time I got to LOTR Eowyn and Galadriel were sufficiently wonderful to compensate for a mere head count, and I find their artificial insertion into the films patronising and as ludicrous as if they say made the Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan a woman. Anyway this has been a long digression off the topic, my fault no doubt for mentioning something that occured to me in the course of another response.

Quite agreed. One might as well blame the book Little Women for having too many women. In The Hobbit the only females even mentioned are Belladonna Took and one half of the Sackville-Bagginses. But the book is sufficiently well written that it transcends any attempt to blame Tolkien for writing an adventure story in which males only appear.

You digression was amusing and I though it might be fun to take it farther. Apparently not. Sorry.

[Mithalwen]

Ah well I didn't detect the amusement, I have a somewhat literal mind at times that can cause a sense of humour bypass. Tone of voice can be very hard to read. My first neg repped post was because what I had written as self deprecating also read as somewhat arrogant. Hey ho...

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Considering how many rulers of Númenor there were, that actually sounds very sexist.

If it were so sexist I'd say there would be ONLY kings which there weren't. I believe there are more women than men in the real world. I also believe without the consent of men women would have less rights than they do today. I do wonder if the sexes are equal why women should ever be treated as lesser than men being half and usually most of the population. Personally I do not believe in equality. I think some people are better than others.

Back to Tolkien, Galadriel was the equal of Feanor who was seen as the greatest of the Children of Illuvatar. Though with Elves there was not much difference in physical ability between the sexes whereas in our world men are about 30% stronger than women physically. So is there sexism or women not knowing their place? I'm not sure. I like women even those like Penthesilia but even the daughter of Ares was no match for Achilles. I can't see an army of women in the thick of battle where the men are perhaps just nurses or non-combatants. Obviously, people not being equal there are some women who're more suited for battle than men. There are always some things that make me wonder about these differences like war, philosophizing, birthing humans, etc.

[Mithalwen]

I suddenly feel like I have fallen through a time-warp, here maybe.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

If it were so sexist I'd say there would be ONLY kings which there weren't.

See the discussion of sexism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism . A system in which females are mostly denied rulership allowed to males would be by almost everyone be called a sexist system. Protest all you want. It will remain a sexist system. Similarly a system in which rulers must be from a particular class will be a class system, despite the occasional exception.

Tolkien wrote his Middle-earth stories set in a prehistoric world largely modelled on historic medieval Europe which was also sexist. There are arguments that there are reasons for this, even good reasons, why female rulers were recognized only when the male line failed. That doesn’t make the practice non-sexist. It may indicate that it was, at least in origin, a practical solution to the problems of choosing a ruler.

I believe there are more women than men in the real world. I also believe without the consent of men women would have less rights than they do today.

Similarly laws against slavery exist with the consent of the majority of non-slaves, and laws giving full rights to gay folk exist with the consent of the majority of straight people, and laws allowing full rights to the handicapped exist with the consent of most of the able-bodied.

Rights are often given only with the permission of those who are not part of the group to which the rights were given. What import does that have?

I do wonder if the sexes are equal why women should ever be treated as lesser than men being half and usually most of the population. Personally I do not believe in equality. I think some people are better than others.

Scarcely anyone believes in equality you are talking about in societies in which contests between people over physical and intellectual superiority are so important. Democracy does not depend on equality but about a contest in which a number of people try to obtain the most votes to rule or to become one of the rulers. Few would be so dishonest as to say that all voters are equal in their discrimination in casting their vote.

Back to Tolkien, Galadriel was the equal of Feanor who was seen as the greatest of the Children of Illuvatar.

I have not checked everything Tolkien wrote on the matter, but I doubt this is true. No-where is it even suggested that Galadriel was equal to Fëanor as a craftsman and it is often indicated that Galadriel was probably less possessive than Fëanor. People are different in different ways. No one person is the exact equal of another, if you mean the exact equivalent.

Though with Elves there was not much difference in physical ability between the sexes whereas in our world men are about 30% stronger than women physically. So is there sexism or women not knowing their place? I'm not sure.

Suppose men were, on the average 50% stronger than women? What does that have to do with the right to rule? We no longer choose even the physically strongest man to rule. Perhaps only professional, male, athletes should be allowed to enter politics and they should fight one another in an arena.

I like women even those like Penthesilia but even the daughter of Ares was no match for Achilles.

It is doubtful that either Achilles or Penthesilia ever existed. This imaginary story can only be used to indicate the attitudes of those who wrote it, not reality. If you want a genuine warrior woman, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_I_of_Caria .

I can't see an army of women in the thick of battle where the men are perhaps just nurses or non-combatants. Obviously, people not being equal there are some women who're more suited for battle than men. There are always some things that make me wonder about these differences like war, philosophizing, birthing humans, etc.[/quote]

Stories of Amazons may also be untrue, but it is only your personal beliefs that indicate that the story of Achillles and Penthesilia is any more true.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military and other real sources which may help you in your wonderings.

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by jallanite

A system in which females are mostly denied rulership allowed to males would be by almost everyone be called a sexist system. Protest all you want. It will remain a sexist system.

In RotK it is said, "it was then made a law of the royal house that the eldest child of the King, whether man or woman, should receive the sceptre." [p. 353] This is not a denial of rulership. This would actually be some progress on the island of Numenor.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Similarly a system in which rulers must be from a particular class will be a class system, despite the occasional exception.

Certainly. I've no problem with class.

Originally Posted by jallanite

There are arguments that there are reasons for this, even good reasons, why female rulers were recognized only when the male line failed. That doesn’t make the practice non-sexist. It may indicate that it was, at least in origin, a practical solution to the problems of choosing a ruler.

Good point. But as the quote from RotK indicates it was law that "the eldest child of the King, whether man or woman, should receive the sceptre".

Originally Posted by jallanite

Similarly laws against slavery exist with the consent of the majority of non-slaves, and laws giving full rights to gay folk exist with the consent of the majority of straight people, and laws allowing full rights to the handicapped exist with the consent of most of the able-bodied.

Consent to be taken into account and recognized nevertheless.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Rights are often given only with the permission of those who are not part of the group to which the rights were given. What import does that have?

Access to those rights is the import of such things.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Democracy does not depend on equality but about a contest in which a number of people try to obtain the most votes to rule or to become one of the rulers.

Democracy is for very small populations and does not work in large ones. Like a village is a place where Democracy can be practical.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Few would be so dishonest as to say that all voters are equal in their discrimination in casting their vote.

Inequality abounds in all segments of life.

Originally Posted by jallanite

No-where is it even suggested that Galadriel was equal to Fëanor as a craftsman and it is often indicated that Galadriel was probably less possessive than Fëanor. People are different in different ways. No one person is the exact equal of another, if you mean the exact equivalent.

I did not mean to say they were equals. That is my fault. Feanor as we are told, "was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Illuvatar." [Sil., p. 112] Of Galadriel it is said that, "she was the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years... she grew to be tall beyond the measure even of the women of the Noldor; she was strong of body, mind, and will, a match for both the loremasters and the athletes of the Eldar in the days of their youth." [UT, p. 241] And of the two of them it is said, "These two kinsfolk, the greatest of the Eldar in Valinor were unfriends for ever... she withheld her goodwill from none save only Feanor." [UT, p. 241]

You say that "People are different in different ways" and I'd say we are just different.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Suppose men were, on the average 50% stronger than women? What does that have to do with the right to rule?

Forgive my thoughts but I did not mean to correlate that statement with rulership. I was only speaking of a few of the differences that abound among us.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Perhaps only professional, male, athletes should be allowed to enter politics and they should fight one another in an arena.

The arenas to which their skills are best put to use are fine enough. I believe that the politicians in my country of the U.S.A. are not fit for the arena in which they get down and dirty.

Originally Posted by jallanite

It is doubtful that either Achilles or Penthesilia ever existed.

I don't believe they did but Quintus did a good job with them. Exciting tale.

Originally Posted by jallanite

If you want a genuine warrior woman, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_I_of_Caria .

I love me some Rhonda Rousey.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Stories of Amazons may also be untrue, but it is only your personal beliefs that indicate that the story of Achillles and Penthesilia is any more true.

They're likely are not true at all! I did not mean to reference Achilles-Penthesilia as a historical anecdote. My point was that the best male warrior will best the best female warrior. Not that females cannot beat males in a fight. I recall watching an entertaining beatdown in the street when a woman I know beat this guy up and basically overpowered him so badly she was bashing his head into a car.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

In RotK it is said, "it was then made a law of the royal house that the eldest child of the King, whether man or woman, should receive the sceptre." [p. 353] This is not a denial of rulership. This would actually be some progress on the island of Numenor.

This sentence from The Lord of the Rings seems to make no sense. According to what this says, approximately half of the rulers of Númenor following Tar-Ancalimë would be Ruling Queens, not only two. Tolkien appears to have made an error.

Possibly Tolkien has ignored the possibility of refusing the sceptre. But Christopher Tolkien near the end of “Aldarion and Erendis″ in Unfinished Tales notes that outside of The Lord of the Rings the new law of succession is normally noted differently:

But by this ‘new law’ the (eldest) daughter of the Ruler inherited the Sceptre, if he had no son (this being, of course, in contradiction to what is said in The Lord of the Rings). By the advice of the Council it was added that she was free to refuse.

In “The Line of Elros” in Unfinished Tales the law is stated as in “Aldarion and Erendis”:

In her [Tar-Ancalimë’s] favour Aldarion altered the law of succession, so that the (eldest) daughter of a King should succeed, if he had no sons.

But in the same document it is noted for IX Tar-Súrion:

He was the third child of Tar-Anárion; his sisters refused the sceptre.

This must assume that The Lord of the Rings version of the new law is in effect.

So even if one takes The Lord of the Rings version of the new law as valid there is still sexism in that female may refused the sceptre while males may not and if there are no sons and all females refuse the sceptre then the sceptre passes to the nearest male kinsman of male descent from Elros.

Sexism occurs when there is any issue of sex at all. That said, the majority of both men and women may agree that some examples of sexism are justified. For example, in Toronto, women travelling late hours on Toronto Transit vehicles may request to be let off between stops and the driver will do this unless there is some reason why the driver cannot safely stop exactly where required.

Certainly. I've no problem with class.

I do with inherited class, the usual problems.

Democracy is for very small populations and does not work in large ones. Like a village is a place where Democracy can be practical.

True for direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy ). Not true of represenative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy ). Constitutional monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy) is really representative democracy in disguise in which the supposed monarch is almost entirely a puppet in the hands of the genuine rulers.

It is the opinion of many people in many countries that representational democracy/constitutional monarchy is working reasonably well in their countries and other countries. Few people would prefer the imposition of an hereditary autocracy or want to return to a period in which woman were mostly given inferior education.

I did not mean to say they were equals. That is my fault. Feanor as we are told, "was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Illuvatar." [Sil., p. 112] Of Galadriel it is said that, "she was the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years... she grew to be tall beyond the measure even of the women of the Noldor; she was strong of body, mind, and will, a match for both the loremasters and the athletes of the Eldar in the days of their youth." [UT, p. 241] And of the two of them it is said, "These two kinsfolk, the greatest of the Eldar in Valinor were unfriends for ever... she withheld her goodwill from none save only Feanor." [UT, p. 241]

And because Fëanor is male and of a particular lineage he and his loutish sons have great wealth and possessions while Galadriel, natively, has less. More sexism.

Originally Tolkien had Galadriel gain her rulership by marrying into a lineage outside the Noldor. Later he had both Celeborn and Galadriel somehow gain possession of Lothlórien which was entirely outside the circle of Noldorin and Sindarin lords. In both cases this is partly sexism.

The arenas to which their skills are best put to use are fine enough. I believe that the politicians in my country of the U.S.A. are not fit for the arena in which they get down and dirty.

I am not certain what you are talking about. What countries historically have had a history which is distinctly less vile than the U.S.A. and is not a democracy?

I don't believe they did but Quintus did a good job with them. Exciting tale.

And lots of exciting tales are fictional. The story of Achilles and Penesthilia is known to have been previously written by many authors before Quintus Smyrnae.

I did not mean to reference Achilles-Penthesilia as a historical anecdote. My point was that the best male warrior will best the best female warrior.

Not necessarily. Penesthilia is a fictional character who is beaten because the authors want her to be beaten. The story of Achilles continues until the authors want Achilles to be beaten and slain, slain by Paris or by Apollo or by the two of them. Nothing is proved by such fictions. There is no such thing as “best male warrior” or “best female warrior” in real life. And in real life often the one generally perceived as the inferior may turn out to be the victor in a particular contest.

An unexpected trick may gain the victory against odds.

Not that females cannot beat males in a fight. I recall watching an entertaining beatdown in the street when a woman I know beat this guy up and basically overpowered him so badly she was bashing his head into a car.

Since I have no information about what the fight was about, I could have no opinion about whom I should be rooting for, if either of the two.

Basically Tolkien has mainly written books set in sexist societies for the same reason that historical writers do. The reader does not expect to be reading a tale set in a perfect utopia. Of course, Tolkien was usually writing an heroic romance, not a realistic novel which one should expect to be grimmer. But, in that mode, the Shire is somewhat cleaned up but mainly based on places he was brought up. The sexism exhibited is the normal sexism one expects of the kind of places and times about which he writes, also somewhat cleaned up, and mostly with no light shed on it.

You appear to be supporting very much the kind of thing which Mithalwen’s post makes fun of. The link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMb8C...ature=youtu.be I find wonderful.

[Mithalwen]

You might like ths one too then... http://youtu.be/39qdhbkTko4