From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Eowyn
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 05:23:21 GMT

In article <1h2b84INN9qn@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE> winkler@zrzsp12.bg.tu-berlin.de (Barbara Maren Winkler) writes:
>And when in the end [Eowyn] renounced warfare and went to be a healer
>and gardener, I didn't want to accept it: No, this wouldn't have
>been me.

Why not?  After war is over, what else is there to do?

>  But it is not unusual or radical to think about a (single) woman who
>takes arms and wants to fight, not even in the 1930s; a common theme in
>literature, as others have argued. And also, it is not at all unusual that
>she in the end "gets tamed" by a man (very sexist term) and takes on a more
>'domestic' role, becoming a healer and gardener. And this is what bothers
>me, and has always bothered me since I first read LoTR.

I think you are reading more into the discussion between Faramir and
Eowyn than is there.  Eowyn asks him if the people of Gondor would say
that Faramir has tamed a wild shieldmaiden.  What she is pointing out
is the long history the people of Gondor have had of holding
themselves higher than non-Numenorean Men.  (They even hold themselves
higher than the Dunedain of Arnor.)  It is clear from other passages
that Tolkien opposes very much the pride of the Numenoreans, and of
their pride comes many troubles (the Kin-strife, for example).
Faramir's response is to say that he doesn't care what anyone says
about the two of them.  (Granted, a better response would be to say
that Eowyn should not refer to herself as being tamed, but I believe
the meaning is clear.)

>  Eowyn has all sorts of perfect reasons to marry and become a healer;
>her "heart has changed", and healing is more valuable than killing,
>isn't it? Even the LoTR characters agree on that. All their fights are to
>the end of protecting a rural, domestic, peaceful life... All the arguments
>that Tolkien has her say in the talk to Faramir sound good. But it just
>strikes me subtly that all such arguments only appear in connection with
>a _woman_. None of the men who always fight have to bother about such
>arguments; Aragorn can dismiss them by pointing to his "duty". Healing is
>more valuable than killing, or so it is said, but only in connection with
>women.

Not true.  Note in that discussion, Faramir also says that he will be
a healer/gardener.  This is not the first time he says this; in the
encounter with Frodo and Sam in Ithilien, he declares that he fights
only to defend Minas Tirith, the city that he loves, and he would
rather see the White Tree in bloom again, etc.  He also shows respect
for gardeners in his comment to Sam about garderners in the Shire.

There are other examples of how healing is shown to be more valuable
than killing, in the context of men:

Aragorn's healing of the injured after the Battle of the Pelennor
Fields.  (Allow me that Ioreth said that "the rightful king would be
known" by his ability to heal as being in the context of Aragorn, not
Ioreth.)

Sam, a warrior in the War of the Ring, wanted only to return to the
Shire and heal it, which he did after the war ended.

Frodo, likewise, only wanted to return home after disposing of the
Ring.  He persuaded the hobbits of the Shire not to kill Saruman even
though Saruman attempted to kill him, saying instead that Saruman
should be free to seek healing.

>  This marginalization is exactly what can be observed in LoTR. As Jim
>Chokey pointed out, the places where women occur at all are rare, and
>they are usually connected with domestic tasks or a home. It just isn't
>interesting. Tolkien states this very explicitly somewhere either in
>the "hobbit" or in the beginning of LoTR, saying that there is not much
>to say about quiet life when people stay at home, and that adventures
>are much more interesting. Now, adventures are something where only
>men participate (except Eowyn...).

Granted, there are few women in LoTR.  This is a valid "criticism" of
the work.

>  This directly corresponds to the way the sexual division of labor
>is valued in almost all societies. Theoretically, growing plants and
>healing etc., and the productive feminine tasks, ought to be valued
>much higher, but they just aren't. Male activities and especially warfare
>have a much higher social status, even though they may pretend they
>do it all to protect the women and children. (Look at how much money
>U.S. society spends on military and how much on education.)

However, I believe that after all is said and done, Tolkien *does*
value productive tasks, such as healing, and he assigns them to women
and men alike.

>  And Eowyn knows this, and she says it. The idealization of women
>and domestic tasks is just nice talk; what really counts, is power
>of arms and strength. Tolkien has tried to eliminate that fact and
>to value peaceful societies higher than fighting ones, but this is
>just a moralization with no grounds, what he describes is different,
>LoTR is a book about a _war_.

It is more than a war, though.  You must (despite the protestations of
James Chokey) at LoTR in the context of past events.  The War of the
Ring was fought not because the "Allies" wanted to fight Sauron's
minions.  It was fought so that the Ring could be destroyed, and with
it, Sauron, the last great evil in Middle-Earth.  Power, arms, and
strength were only used in defense, and to draw Sauron's strength away
from his homeland, so Frodo and Sam could sneak in and destroy the
ring.  I think Eowyn misses some of these points; all she saw was
people going off to fight (and leaving her home).  She misses that
many of these people do not want to fight (even Aragorn says so in his
talk with her), and that they are only doing what they need to do to
rid Middle-Earth of a great evil, not to win glory for themselves.

There would not have needed to be a War of the Ring if Isildur had
done what he was told to do at the end of the Last Alliance, and
thrown the Ring into the fires of Orodruin.

>There is no contradiction between these two statements. Galadriel, or
>rather Tolkien, shows us here how a woman who is more intelligent or
>competent (or in this case: in a mysterious, magical way "more powerful")
>than her husband may act in society when she nevertheless has to be
>"second to him" (officially) just because he is the man.

I think it is clear that Galadriel is the true power *and* wisdom in
Lorien.  Celeborn is just a figure (not even a figure head).  I think
you are reading too much into the initial discussions between the
Company of the Ring, Celeborn, and Galadriel.
 
>There are countless
>examples of this, "the women behind the ruling men", the wife who directs
>her husband subtly by submission, etc. ... It is also a common conservative
>argument in favor of the traditional gender roles: 'the woman has another
>sort of power, the power of agreeing and influencing'...

It is my experience that women value the powers of wisdom, nuturing,
and healing, and wish to be recognized for these.  It is my opinion
that Galadriel is recognized and revered for these as well.  I also do
not see that Galadriel directs Celeborn subtly, or in any other way;
she's her own person and she does what she feels is best.  (This is
true of her throughout all of Tolkien's writings.)

>But feminism challenges precisely the gender constellation where this
>has to be so, where a woman has to stand back behind a man and has to
>act through him instead of being able to assume the same autonomy. 

How is Galadriel acting through Celeborn?  Does he hold the Ring of
Adamant?  Did he call the White Council?  Whose mirror are Frodo and
Sam looking into, and who is counseling them?

>And this is the way this character is treated here. Galadriel
>always draws back behind Celeborn who is a much "lesser" elf
>than herself, which is also shown, and Michael describes it by being
>more impressed with her than with Celeborn.

Galadriel does not "always draw back behind Celeborn", as I've shown
above.

>For Eowyn, there was a deep conflict between her own wishes and society's
>expectations of her (and the opportunities society gave her. Marrying
>Aragorn was not one: "too high up"). A very common female conflict. Often
>leads to depression.

Well, this is probably better discussed elsewhere, but in my opinion,
if more women stopped chasing after the unreachable Aragorns of the
world, and started looking towards the Faramirs of the world who
regard them as equals and value what they value in themselves, they
wouldn't get depressed.

>Or: She finally accepts the role that the LoTR societies ascribe to
>her as a woman. Society may be repressive, but it may still be less strain
>to comply with its norms than to continue rebellion. Rebellion is a
>common phase to go trough in order to to become a respected member of
>society. In this light, one could see her changing her mind as her
>final step to maturity, and I think Tolkien _does_ portray it that
>way.

Middle-Earth, and the other lands of Tolkien's creation are not
society as we understand it.  Being a rebel just causes you (and
others) trouble.  If Eowyn had continued to rebel, and insisted on
fighting, or be in charge of some place or people that wished to be
left in peace, she would have been guilty of the same kinds of
misdeeds that caused all the trouble in Tolkien's lands in the first
place.

>Is the ME world, as it is, "good", and Eowyn just "bad" ("isolationist")
>as she does not accept her role? Tolkien, with the course of the
>narrative, suggests it. I don't agree (still). I think her change of
>mind is a compliance with certain gender assumptions Tolkien had in mind,
>and it isn't even psychologically convincing. I heretically fear Eowyn
>might have made a very bad housewife.

If this is how you want to read it, you certainly have that right.
I think there are several examples to the contrary, some of which I've
given, and others I can provide, if necessary.  As to your last point,
Eowyn didn't become a housewife; she became a healer and gardener.
Faramir did not want a housewife and Eowyn did not want to be one,
either.

>And I am under no obligation to not criticize his work from a feminist
>point of view; not because Tolkien was an evil non-feminist, but because
>people nowadays read LoTR and often fail to realize the gender-role
>assumptions carried on by it.

As Tolkien was a man of his time, doubtless there are some gender-role
assumptions that need to be challenged, but I think you are being too
critical of him here.  He was certainly far ahead of his time, with
respect to recognizing the value and strength of the "woman's role".

--gregbo
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien