What did boromir do in rivendell?

[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

[Belegorn]

You can just come out and call me sexist as that is what you are essentially doing. I've no problem with that. "For justice speaks thus to me: 'Men are not equal.' And neither should they become so!" [Thus Spoke Zarathustra] I've no problem with women or men violating mores, or gender roles. When I look to the divine it is feminine, I've no problem with female warriors, politicians, or whatever craft or sphere they may be in based on their gender. Like their male counter-parts I look to their performance. I know my post in which the other poster essentially called me a sexist without saying so seemed like I was against women in certain positions. Hardly the case! I was only reflecting on the world as it is and is not.

I think in the end the cream rises to the top. Certainly anyone at the top of any sphere is capable of being bested by lesser persons. Sometimes someone not in another's league just has that person's number even though he or she could not hope to attain the type of success exhibited by that person in their craft versus the rest of the field. I do believe that in almost any physical contest, the top male will almost always be better than the top female.

Sexism, racism, classism have been hurled at the LotR. No women or few of little significance, no blacks, the Dunedain vs. the Middle Men, et cetera.

I do not recall Galadriel ever being the ruler of anyone, at least not in title. She and Celeborn did "establish the Noldorin realm of Eregion" [UT, p. 246] though I know Feanor's grandson to be its Lord.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I suspect that the communication passing like ships in the night here has to do with, on the one hand, viewing the word "sexist" as morally freighted and pejorative, and on the other hand viewing it as a neutral descriptor. It can of course be either, but onhe hopes that both participants in a conversation understand it the same way for that purpose!

(BTW, modern "representative democracy" does NOT work- but everything else is even worse).

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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

Lovely.

The motif that women don’t understand cars is unfortunately still with us, though if carefully handled it need not give offence as in fact some males also do not understand cars. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51JtuEa_OPc . Note that the Doctor simply brushes aside Amy’s desire to learn to operate and repair the Tardis while training her husband Rory. Does he love her dearly but think that she is perhaps more suited to talking about kittens. Rory then teases Amy about her incapacity in driving. The upshot is that Amy is, however, very successful at sexually attracting and distracting men, which causes the main problem in this very short episode. The story continues in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmiefoRcfU in which ditzy Amy manages to sexually attract and distract herself.

Normally Amy is portrayed as a more intelligent person than she is here.

It is still amusing as long as one does not take it that every female is like Amy and that, as other episodes show, Amy is generally intelligent and capable.

Originally Posted by Belegorn

You can just come out and call me sexist as that is what you are essentially doing.

Fair enough. But ask yourself why the only two people who have commented on your posts give you that impression. What have you said that might give them that impression?

Sexism, racism, classism have been hurled at the LotR. No women or few of little significance, no blacks, the Dunedain vs. the Middle Men, et cetera.

Some of these charges are true enough in part. But there is so much more to this one story. You appear to be unecessarily defending Tolkien’s writing by claiming that sexism is alright because most men are physically stronger than most women.

I do not recall Galadriel ever being the ruler of anyone, at least not in title. She and Celeborn did "establish the Noldorin realm of Eregion" [UT, p. 246] though I know Feanor's grandson to be its Lord.

Exactly. Living in a pseudo-medieval world Galadriel is limited by her environment in a way that the sons of Fëanor are not. Her brothers Finrod, Aegnor, and Angrod all have their lands and followers in the First Age while Galadriel does not. The same is true for other Elvish women. They all live with their brothers or their husbands and do not rule on their own, do not have the same rights as their male siblings because they are women.

No surprise. This is a pseudo-medieval world after all. So Galadriel, according to the published Silmarillion:

… the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager to be gone. No oaths she swore, but the words of Fëanor concerning Middle-earth had kindled in her heart, for she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will.

Eventually she gets her land to rule as she and her husband Celeborn become Lord and Lady of Eregion and then Lothlórien. Lady is here obviously the feminine of Lord. Together Celeborn and Galadriel rule Lothlórien. How did you interpret Galadriel’s title of Lady of Lórien if you “do not recall Galadriel ever being the ruler of anyone, at least not in title”? “The History of Galadriel and Celeborn” in Unfinished Tales states:

Celeborn and Galadriel came to be regarded as Lord and Lady of the Eldar in Eriador, …

That is, Celeborn and Galadriel are rulers of the Eldar in Eriador.

Later (emphasis mine):

So great became his [Sauron’s] hold on the Mírdain that at length he persuades them to revolt against Galadriel and Celeborn and to seize power in Eregion; and that was at some time between 1350 and 1400 of the Second Age. Galadriel thereupon left Eregion and passed through Khazad-dûm to Lórinand, taking with her Amroth and Celebrían; but Celeborn would not enter the mansions of the Dwarves, and remained in Eregion, disregarded by Celebrimbor. In Lórinand Galadriel took up rule, and defence against Sauron.

Another version of the history of Galadriel and Celeborn states (emphasis mine):

After the disaster of Moria [in the year 1980] and the sorrows of Lórien, which was now left without a ruler (for Amroth was drowned in the sea in the Bay of Belfalas and left no heir), Celeborn and Galadriel returned to Lórien, and were welcomed by the people. They dwelt there while the Third Age lasted, but they took no title of King or Queen; for they said that they were only guardians of this small but fair realm, the last eastward outpost of the Elves.

Yet another version (emphasis mine):

In her wisdom Galadriel saw that Lórien would be a stronghold and point of power to prevent the Shadow from crossing the Anduin in the war that must be inevitably before it was again defeated (if that were possible); but that it needed a rule of greater strength and wisdom than the Silvan folk possessed. Nevertheless, it was not until the disaster in Moria, when by means beyond the foresight of Galadriel Sauron’s power actually crossed the Anduin and Lórien was in great peril, its king [Amroth] lost, its people fleeing and likely to be deserted to be occupied by the Orcs, that Galadriel and Celeborn took up their permanent abode in Lórien, and its government. But they took no title of King or Queen, and were the guardians that in the event brought it unviolated through the War of the Ring.

Try to recall better.

[Mithalwen]

My great-grandfather was works foreman at the Triumph for 25 years over the turn of the last century and refused to employ women thinking they couldn't cope with engineering. He didn't live long enough to see one daughter become a winning rally driver and the other leasrn to fly and drive a train. My mother was one of the first people to drive round Silverstone. Don't have any truck with using the nature of a person's reproductive organs to decide what they should or could do - other than in matters of reproduction of course.

BTW referring women not knowing their place especially as an alternative to sexism does give impression of sexism.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by jallanite

No surprise. This is a pseudo-medieval world after all. So Galadriel, according to the published Silmarillion: the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager to be gone. No oaths she swore, but the words of Fëanor concerning Middle-earth had kindled in her heart, for she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will.

It reflects not only the pseudo-medieval Middle Earth, but the culture of the time the books were written. These days, if one visits the fantasy / horror section of your neighborhood book store, one is apt to find a strong dash of the 'romance' genre added to the modern magic tradition. The heroine is apt to be an over sexed vampire, werewolf, demon, angel or slayer of whatever. Her sorta trusty sidekick and love interest is more apt to resemble Boromir or Beorn than Samwise. Things have changed.

Not necessarily for the better, mind you.

Fiction often echoes the world view of the author's time and place. Tolkien's time was not particularly enlightened. He pushed the envelope in enough areas that I can't fault him for not pushing in other areas.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Even there, though, Tolkien cites Galadriel *and* Celeborn as co-rulers; he couldn't bring himself to make even the greatest (tie) of all the Eldar a sole ruler in her own right- and this despite the fact that Galadriel was by far superior to he husband in both native power and royal lineage. No Elf-king seems to share rule with his consort! (At least, not if she isn't a demi-goddess).

Here naturally Tolkien is simply being a man of his time, and a product of long European and English tradition. Of England's first three ruling queens, two had to share the crown with their husbands in dual monarchies (Philip and Mary, William and Mary), and the third (Elizabeth) ducked marriage so to avoid that fate. The three since have been carefully paired with "prince consorts;" a King can have a Queen, but not the reverse. In much of the Continent it's worse: Salic law applied and no female could inherit or even transmit inheritance (that's why Victoria was never Queen of Hanover though her uncles and grandfather had been Kings).

As to the 'physical strength' business- in olden days there was a certain logic to that, so long as kings were expected to go out personally and hack at other big men with meat cleavers. It's notable that while Numenor moved from strict male primogeniture to either male-preference or gender-neutral primogeniture (depending on the version of the amended succession law one accepts), neither of the kingdoms in exile ever had a ruling Queen; and this difference can I think be explained by the fact that Numenor was mostly at peace and was never threatened at home, whereas the tale of the North and South Kingdoms is one of constant war.

EDIT: In fact, Gondor passed the crown to a cadet line, and then allowed the Kingship to lapse entirely, rather than even consider a claim by or through a perfectly valid princess, Firiel. Plainly the revised Numenorean law did *not* apply in the South-kingdom.