[ SECRET POST #2843 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2843 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #406.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[philstar22]

Well, he had clear ideas of the role of women. Ideas which certainly made sense for the time he lived in, but it still is there. Eowyn was awesome, but then at the end she gave up being a shieldmaiden to settle down and be a traditional woman and that was a good thing, supposedly. Arwen is kind of meh, she's really just there. Galadrial is awesome. Luthien is freaking awesome, but people who haven't read the Silmarillion wouldn't know that and would just know the women from LOTR.

[(Anonymous)]

If that's what people are calling sexism, I think it's bullshit. That's not what Tolkien was doing or saying.

[(Anonymous)]

But it is??? The narrative shows a woman being a wife and mother as a thing that women should strive for.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it shows peace as the thing that should be strived for. Eowyn settles down but so does everyone else. She becomes a healer, and I have no doubt she helped Faramir rebuild Ithilien.

[philstar22]

Well, yes, but it is specifically the one woman warrior who gives up fighting for good. Protecting people and doing one's duty by fighting if necessary is seen as good for men. If evil were to come again, the male characters would all pick up their swords again.

[(Anonymous)]

And so would Eowyn. She became a healer because it was a time of peace but there is nothing in LOTR to suggest that if Sauron rose again she wouldn't also pick up her sword again too.

http://middle-earth.xenite.org/2014/07/21/are-there-women-warriors-in-tolkiens-literature/

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, yes, the warrior becoming a healer. Such a prestigious thing! That's why you see plenty of male characters in the same series do it!

[(Anonymous)]

You don't think Faramir wasn't going to do the same thing? Or that Elrond and other great healers weren't lauded? Tolkien had several healers who are male and are valued for it. Aragorn is known for his ability to heal - that's how he's recognized. Eowyn was shown as a brave warrior but now that the fight was over, why shouldn't she be a healer?

BTW, thanks for being such an ass in your reply.

[(Anonymous)]

There is a sense in the text that Elrond, for instance, and Aragorn and other male healers are healers at the same time as they are warriors while Eowyn becomes a healer instead of continuing to be a warrior.

[(Anonymous)]

That's your personal reading. I don't agree. There was nothing in the text that said she couldn't have continued being a warrior if she'd wanted to. There was nothing in the text that said she wouldn't have grabbed her sword again if the need came. The only thing that is said is that she wants to be a healer now, and given all the crap she'd been through, that makes sense. I had the same feeling from Faramir.

And Elrond basically did give up being a warrior. After the Last Alliance, he never went to war again, even though Rivendell was besieged for a time. Sure, if it really came to it, he would've grabbed his sword. I think he and Eowyn would've done pretty much the same (except I think she would've become proactive long before he did; there is nothing in the text that said she wouldn't).

[(Anonymous)]

This is a dumb argument because the ratio isn't equal. And men generally aren't shunted into those roles, so yes there is more baggage there when it happens to a female character for the millionth time while the myriad other male characters get more variety.

[(Anonymous)]

Women are often shunted into Nurturing Healer role often, though. Most games and such show a woman as the default healer, if not the ONLY healers.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but only because they are copying Tolkien. It wasn't an obnoxious trope when he did it. It became one due to the legion of cack-handed copycats that did it without heed to the context Tolkien had prepared for his characters.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. It's a worldwide phenomenon because everyone ever is copying Tolkien.

[(Anonymous)]

I used to feel that way, too. But reconsidering her story- she's just shifted from one heavy duty to another. Unless, of course, you think healers are nothing.

Anyone who's fought and defeated an incredible evil and nearly died from the poisoning from it is entitled to put down the sword and shield and pick up something life affirming. She doesn't need to prove herself anymore.

[(Anonymous)]

No, but I do think healers are coded as the steroetypical feminine role because ~women are nurturers~. Look at RPGs. most healers or white mages are women.

As well, it shouldn't have been about proving herself, ever. It should have been entirely about her wanting to be a warrior.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

And she was a warrior. Then the war ended, what was she going to fight?

[(Anonymous)]

I got news for you: Women are nurturers. There is a reason why the healing and nurturing was a female thing in most cultures (even those that had no cultural connection) and it probably wasn't because of sexism.

[(Anonymous)]

Most cultures also had women be subservient and a property of men. I suppose you're going to tell me now that that too had a deep very improtant reason, that isn't sexism.

[(Anonymous)]

So basically, you're saying that no cultural deveolpment could ever have made sense for a different reason than sexism? Cute.

You're one of those people who think "they forbade the consumption of pork because they hated pigs", I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

Women are generally potential or actual childbearers. Nurturing is a completely different matter. Methinks you are equating a culturally-enforced social role with a personality trait, and baby, it's just not so.

[(Anonymous)]

It's because of sexism. Sorry, but you're wrong. Women are seen as primarily vessels for children first and foremost in most cultures.

I say this as someone who lives with a history major who rants about this all the time.