Eowyn and feminism and Tolkien

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

She's a member of a royal household and high status, and second in line to the throne. So the request that she stay behind to govern Rohan is one she might well have expected even if she were male, following the traditional 'heir and a spare' rule of thumb. Yes, it could have been that Eomer would return and take up his own place again, but it was also likely she would have been left a Queen in charge of a realm stripped of menfolk - a huge responsibility to bear. So I don't think that the request she stay behind was a cut and dried case of 'sexism'.

Good to see you back posting, Lalwendë!

Wasn't there an almost parallel incident to this in the appendixes when a (male) heir to the throne of Gondor was ordered to remain in Osgilath (or Minas Tirith) but came to the battle anyway in disguise, only to get himself killed, along with the king and the rest of his sons?

Anyway, I don't think Eowyn was second or even third in line for the throne. Rohan and Gondor were patriarchal societies and only male descendants were considered heirs proper. She was only a temporary deputy and her case of "sexism" was perhaps not cut and dried, but it was a strong one nonetheless. It's been a while since I read the dialogue between Aragorn and Eowyn but as far as I can remember it's very balanced and hard to call. When Aragorn tells her to stay he makes many good points, but she too comes up with strong counter-arguments.

Also, doing the wrong thing is usually (or always) punished in LotR, but Eowyn is rewarded with both the glory she sought and with the happiness she thought was lost forever. Therefore I don't believe Tolkien had her wilfully ride off to battle in order to make a negative example of it.