Except all of this directly contradicts everything that Tolkien wrote.[...]
when most women gain their rulership status through marriage rather than in their own right, when sons are heirs and daughters are not, when the one major female character with any power (Galadriel) is almost completely passive, when the point of view characters are all male with one exception (Eowyn), hell, when your humans are referred to not as "humans" but as "Men," etc. your society is patriarchal [...]Everything except the works of his with which anyone is actually familiar?
Part of the issue here is that when Tolkien writes about the society, he says that it's gender-neutral. But when he actually writes the society, the society that is expressed is, as Jessica pointed out, very patriarchal.
TVTropes has an interesting article about informed attributes, when the writing about someone or something mentions an attribute that never actually shows up -- a character who is ostensibly an expert musician but who never plays or sings a note on-stage, for example. Moriarity, the arch-villian who never actually committed an evil or even morally dubious action. The highly trained stormtroopers ("only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise") that can't hit anything they shoot at in the entire Star Wars trilogy. Et cetera.
Tolkien's world is a good example of "informed gender-neutrality." Because while he may have written about it -- in something that no one has read -- he sure didn't actually write it.
Ignorance is not an argument. He wrote it. It was published (posthumously). If you didn't read it, your right, but that's not a valid point.
An informed characteristic is still a characteristic. Stormtroopers, as shown in the movies, are not very precise. Ignoring the fact that this could be attributed to the resources at the time not allowing for the realistic presentation of the high speed, highly acrobatic battles and flights pictured in the Star Wars movie, we have to accept that they were, in fact, very sharp shooters.
Otherwise, we have to assume that the Emperor intentionally staffed his troops with ineffectual soldiers, and at that point, the internal consistency of the world starts crumbling down. Likewise with Moriarty - If we don't take his informed attribute at face value, the verisimilitude of Conan Doyle's works suffers - Why did Sherlock kill him, after all? And so on and so forth.
Informed attributes are part of fiction.
I'll just leave this here.
And what does this prove, other than "Tolkien didn't write many female characters", which no one is disputing?
*sigh* Don't know where my head was thinking this particular conversation would go on smoothly.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just leave this here.And what does this prove, other than "Tolkien didn't write many female characters", which no one is disputing?
*sigh* Don't know where my head was thinking this particular conversation would go on smoothly.
Few posts back you're saying there's gender equality in Tolkien's writing. You can't do equality when 90% of your writing ignores the factor that's supposed to be equal. You can talk about tolerance, acceptance, non-hostility, or perhaps even non-discrimination. But you can't talk about equality. If Tolkien's societies had gender equality, these graphs would look different, because you couldn't portray these societies otherwise.
And get off your high horse. I know some very obscure recordings by Queen, but the world as we know it judges Freddie & Co. by Bohemian Rhapsody, We Will Rock You and Invisible Man. These songs shape the global perception of their art, not some obscure B-sides I listen to. I'm the odd one, not the world.
Except that no. If a characteristic point doesn't get enough representation in the tale, that's because of a failure in the writer. But the characteristic stands as a cornerstone of the setting he writes on. What you're basically saying is that we get to ignore every informed ability/characteristic and judge the world entirely on what's on the main tale, at which point a lot of fictional works would crash down on themselves.
And as to the second point - Being the odd one out is different from being wrong. If the world as we known it started to judge Freddie & Co. musical merits just by these three songs, would you simply fall silent because no one knows the obscure recordings you do and assume you're wrong? Because I wouldn't. This is the worst sort of appeal to popularity, because it's an appeal to popular ignorance.
But you know what, I outta this before I lose my patience for good. I don't want to ruin my stay on these boards because of a single question
Have a nice day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you're basically saying is that we get to ignore every informed ability/characteristic and judge the world entirely on what's on the main tale, at which point a lot of fictional works would crash down on themselves.
Yes. I'm glad you understand that. Informed characteristics that do not actually affect the world of the writing, or in this case, that actively contradict the world of the writing, are routinely disregarded in analysis. "Death of the Author" and all that.
I'll just leave this here.And what does this prove, other than "Tolkien didn't write many female characters", which no one is disputing?
*sigh* Don't know where my head was thinking this particular conversation would go on smoothly.
Have you considered the possibility that this might not be going smoothly because you're wrong? :)
I'd agree the statistics don't prove much. That those women he does describe fall into traditional gender roles does. Or in Eowyn's case, rebel against them before getting a traditional happy ending.
Leaving aside the elves for the moment, will you accept that the Men in Middle Earth were patriarchal? The Realms in Exile, Rohan and the Shire at least. The leaders of all were exclusively male as far as we know. By law in the case of the Dunedain. Or would those not be described as good? Or do you think patriarchy requires even more male dominance?
"Patriarchy" requires widespread institutional sexism against women. That's... The very definition of "patriarchy", at least in standard feminist discourse. Another possible definition of Patriarchy is one where a society is traditionally ruled by men even if women don't face social oppression, but I doubt this is the one everyone is using here.
By what we see on the tale, there's not much widespread institutional sexism against women. The admittedly few named women don't seem to be in a inferior position to the men. I mean, Celeborn is publicly chastised by Galadriel, and no one bats an eye! Eowyn rides to battle, and no one reprimands her for that. And on the notes about the societies, we see that Tolkien intended for them to be equal, even if his execution was far below that mark.
And the reason I think this is not going smoothly is because we the above is still being debated. We are literally having a conversation about a concept in which we don't agree on what said concept means. I think we can't judge if a book features patriarchal societies based only on named characters. People obviously disagree. If we can't establish a basic framework for a debate, I think it's better for me to bow out before this sours my day for good.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Storm trooper shooting is incredibly precise: Every single one of them shoots exactly three feet to the left.
Its just not very accurate.
mumbles mumbles "jedi truth"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignorance is not an argument. He wrote it. It was published (posthumously). If you didn't read it, your right, but that's not a valid point.Except all of this directly contradicts everything that Tolkien wrote.[...]
when most women gain their rulership status through marriage rather than in their own right, when sons are heirs and daughters are not, when the one major female character with any power (Galadriel) is almost completely passive, when the point of view characters are all male with one exception (Eowyn), hell, when your humans are referred to not as "humans" but as "Men," etc. your society is patriarchal [...]Everything except the works of his with which anyone is actually familiar?
Wait a minute -- so the work was sexist until his informed properties were published? But now it isn't?
Or are you suggesting that whether a work is sexist or not is not a property of the work, but a property of the author's unpublished writings that may or may not be known to scholarship?
Or are you suggesting that whether or not a work is sexist depends only on the contents of the author's own mind, so if he _thinks_ he's writing something gender neutral it doesn't matter what he actually writes?
My point is that nothing that the author wrote external to LotR itself is relevant to a question of whether the cultures portrayed in LotR are sexist.
By what we see on the tale, there's not much widespread institutional sexism against women. The admittedly few named women don't seem to be in a inferior position to the men.
You mean, other than being institutionally confined to the gender roles of medieval women, they're not in an inferior position?
By what we see on the tale, there's not much widespread institutional sexism against women. The admittedly few named women don't seem to be in a inferior position to the men.
You mean, other than being institutionally confined to the gender roles of medieval women, they're not in an inferior position?
I don't think you quite grasp what "institutionally" means in this case.
Ignorance is not an argument. He wrote it. It was published (posthumously). If you didn't read it, your right, but that's not a valid point.Except all of this directly contradicts everything that Tolkien wrote.[...]
when most women gain their rulership status through marriage rather than in their own right, when sons are heirs and daughters are not, when the one major female character with any power (Galadriel) is almost completely passive, when the point of view characters are all male with one exception (Eowyn), hell, when your humans are referred to not as "humans" but as "Men," etc. your society is patriarchal [...]Everything except the works of his with which anyone is actually familiar?
Wait a minute -- so the work was sexist until his informed properties were published? But now it isn't?
Or are you suggesting that whether a work is sexist or not is not a property of the work, but a property of the author's unpublished writings that may or may not be known to scholarship?
Or are you suggesting that whether or not a work is sexist depends only on the contents of the author's own mind, so if he _thinks_ he's writing something gender neutral it doesn't matter what he actually writes?
My point is that nothing that the author wrote external to LotR itself is relevant to a question of whether the cultures portrayed in LotR are sexist.
I mean, look at this. I'm talking about Middle-Earth societies being, in-world, not Patriarchal.
You are talking about the work of fiction itself, In Real Life, being sexist.
These are different, tough linked, debates. You are attacking a strawman.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem with the current Tolkien part of this discussion is that equality and equity mean different things to different people. Are you looking for number crunching or actual societal attitudes as described.
If you are looking for an actual accounting of characters with exact same numbers being equal between male and female then you are probably rarely if ever going to get that in a novel.
If you are looking for a society that is described as being equal in the treatment of the sexes and has members of both sexes in various positions of power and importance, then you have what Tolkien discussed.
Take the "there are no female elven warriors described in LOTR" statement. I have read LOTR many times and I don't remember a sex being assigned to any "generic" elven soldier. Yes there are elven characters that are male and female but never does the army march out and is described as the "male elven soldiers".
In fact look at the warriors of Gondor and Rohan. They are not described as the "male warriors" they are just soldiers. They could be 50% female, they could be 90% female. We don't know. To say otherwise is to make assumptions based on your own biases.
What we do know is that Tolkien describes the fact that female soldiers exist in Rohan, he places women in positions of power in the story and in even more abundance in the background materials. He created a world that is more than just "good for the 20's and 30's".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except all of this directly contradicts everything that Tolkien wrote.
I mean, I understand begrudging Tolkien not including more influential women in in Lord of the Rings, even if, in his circumstances, it was to be expected. But you can't say a society is "patriarchal" just because you don't see many women in a fictional work. "Patriarchy" refers to a society where mechanisms are put in place to enforce strict gender roles that ultimately favor men, and where women don't have much say except through her male relatives, and this is not the case among the Free Peoples of Middle Earth. Tolkien didn't manage to represent it into his published novels as well as he intended, but it's there in his notes. They're not "patriarchal". That word has a specific meaning.
The fact that he said it's not patriarchal in his notes doesn't change the portrayal of the societies in his actual, y'know, work. If I write about a society where all the brown people are porters, servants, sidekicks and low-level villains, I can say the society isn't racist all I want. Doesn't change that it is.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that no. If a characteristic point doesn't get enough representation in the tale, that's because of a failure in the writer. But the characteristic stands as a cornerstone of the setting he writes on. What you're basically saying is that we get to ignore every informed ability/characteristic and judge the world entirely on what's on the main tale, at which point a lot of fictional works would crash down on themselves.
And as to the second point - Being the odd one out is different from being wrong. If the world as we known it started to judge Freddie & Co. musical merits just by these three songs, would you simply fall silent because no one knows the obscure recordings you do and assume you're wrong? Because I wouldn't. This is the worst sort of appeal to popularity, because it's an appeal to popular ignorance.
But you know what, I outta this before I lose my patience for good. I don't want to ruin my stay on these boards because of a single question
Have a nice day.
*headdesk*
No, it doesn't. You can say something's a "cornerstone" of someone's work all you want.
If nothing is built on top of it, however, it's a random brick, not a cornerstone.
And okay, you want to bring Tolkien's other writings into this? Okay, let's look at his letters:
"Women really have not much part in [love] for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male." They are "servient, helpmeet."
I'm curious what examples you were thinking of for Good matriarchal societies.
The post-Wizard Land of Oz? The women rulers (e.g. Ozma) are uniformly more enlightened and competent than the men (e.g. the Scarecrow).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is female on male sexism better then male on female sexism?I'm curious what examples you were thinking of for Good matriarchal societies.The post-Wizard Land of Oz? The women rulers (e.g. Ozma) are uniformly more enlightened and competent than the men (e.g. the Scarecrow).
No. But that's not really relevant in this particular context; nothing about the Scarecrow suggests that he's not a very good ruler because he's a man, nor is there any indication that suggests that gender roles play a very large role in the Oz society. (Indeed, you could make a case from some of the incidents, most notably General Jinjur's rebellion and its aftermath, that Oz is not actually a matriarchy.)
One little quibble with that. Referring to Humans as "Men" wasn't about their gender. "Man" is a perfectly acceptable shorthand for mankind and doesn't necessarily denote gender.Yeah,.... no. "Man" is not acceptable shorthand for humanity today precisely because it does denote gender; the fact that Tolkien belonged to an earlier generation that didn't recognize this is unfortunate but doesn't make it acceptable.
There's actually a lot of lab work about how people perceive sexist language, and, yes, when you use gender-denotative language to describe people, it affects their understanding, even when historical linguists would argue that it's simply the traditional "generic" sense.
I admit I should have been clearer. In Tolkien's day, it was acceptable. Don't go projecting modern values into the past. You can't expect someone who was born in 1892 to use perfectly gender neutral language and be decades ahead of his time in terms of gender relations. The argument is not he is perfect or acceptable in modern times but that he is fair for his day. Also your point about "historical linguists" or etymologists is very important here because Tolkien was a professor of language and literature at Oxford before he wrote LotR. So the historical and gender-neutral sense of the word was probably first and foremost in his mind especially given that he was trying to write a story set the past(ish). The society of Middle Earth is archaic and meant to evoke the mythical past. Using "Man" to mean human is fitting in the setting.
|
Hi all. I've noticed that many published material and players play the game based on "genders are largely equal". I'm curious if...
1) most play it this way
To the OP -
Most play this way, as a default I don't.
I run other games besides PF or D&D, one is post-apocalyptic: where there is no assumed equality, only power is derived from brute force and there is institutional racism and racist groups.
My other game which is modern horror where equality is based primarily on accepted society norms of the various cultures of earth.
When it comes to PF/D&D I tend to run lower-powered campaigns that are based a little more in reality/simulation than the default approach of modern values/rights that Paizo has put in Golarion (I do not run Golarion). So that means for the most part women & children take the role they have had in earth history - i.e. often victimized by the stronger forces of the world.
That being said, I do have women in roles of power in my fantasy themed rpgs - not just political power but some also possing divine, arcane or martial prowess or expertise. Generally, these women are exceptions to the rule and they have to buck convention and challenges to their ability (sexism) at times (depends on culture they are in). The assumption of equal rights does not exist in any game world I run unless their is a reason for those rights to exist besides "it feels good" or "we want to write the worlds we want to play in".
Modern Horror - the current evolving status of individual/human rights accepted on Earth in different societies. Other games - not so much.
So short answer: It depends.
-
2) does this seem possible
Paizo has made it so in Golarion (for the most part). Which is their prerogative even if they are inconsistent about: elder rights, rights of the physically challenged, the rights of the mentally challenged, issues of slavery, etc. But I suppose they can start to address those issues as it impacts them personally, draws in more gamers and more $$$, idk.
Is it possible? Yes. Do you want it? 100% subjective to taste and what kind of experience you are trying to get out of your gaming experience.
-
3) if changed what do u do different
The idea of gender equality across dozens of races in a fantasy setting is hard to accept as anything loosely based in reality when men and women of one race in the real world is still an ideal at best (and only in some parts of the world at that). This suspends disbelief for me to some extent and wonder if it does for u and how much. Even in say PFS, there are far more men in charge of a faction then men and, without spoiling much, Cheliax wasn't doing well last i saw.
The idea of gender equality in Golarion is not based on logic as much as the type of games they want to run - inclusive ones. They want to appeal to all genders/gender questioning gamers and gamers of every racial ethnicity if at a possible -even if fanatasy human races are different in background, culture and origin that mirrors their Earth equivalent.
In a high powered world the lines of power and roles of the genders is a bit blurred because of the availability of magic as a sort equalizer of rights. Not sure how that helps your average commoner without an individual Bill of Rights/Civil Rights movement in their individual fantasy culture. It is more of a case that "it feels good".
For my games I don't set a political or teachable moment agenda in design or setup. The only agenda for me is that they are enjoyable/memorable and they are run to the best of my ability. For that I need immersion based remotely on the reality of that game world, not because "it feels right" or because I have a mandate to be inclusive. IMO, anything that detracts from immersion or remains unexplained as to the how’s and whys, eats away at the level of immersion and hurts the game in the end (imo of course, I will get wolf packed in a bit).
Share with me plz.
In before the lock/mod.
The society of Middle Earth is archaic and meant to evoke the mythical past. Using "Man" to mean human is fitting in the setting.
Yes, but "the mythical past" is also highly sexist, as Tolkien was well aware. As you point out, he was born in 1892, meaning that within his lifetime married women were granted the right to control their own property, to enter the professions, to stand for Parliament, and to vote.
I don't see any indications that women had any of these rights, even in the ostensibly more modern Shire. Just as a simple example, do we have any suggestion that any member of the Shirriffs was a female? Do we even have a suggestion of female leadership, such as a Mistress of Brandy Hall? (I note in passing that Peregrin apparently had three older sisters who were passed over for the position of Thain.)
|
I'm curious what examples you were thinking of for Good matriarchal societies.The post-Wizard Land of Oz? The women rulers (e.g. Ozma) are uniformly more enlightened and competent than the men (e.g. the Scarecrow).Is female on male sexism better then male on female sexism?
james jacobs said Holomog is a Good matriarchal society.
I'm not up on Holomog. Is it a matriarchy by Patrick's "Institutional sexism" definition? Or is it just that it has female rulers?
We don't know. It's in Southern Garund and all we know about it at the moment is that the military appears to be mostly female, they ride dinosaurs, and they're vaguely described as both matriarchal and Good.
That's it.
|
|
I do find the constant "I will get wolf packed in a bit" protests a bit much. People disagree with you. Many of them here. Many will post on it. There's no plan. There's no coordination. There's no conspiracy to shout down voices that don't support some agenda. You're just actually outnumbered. At least among people who care enough to read and post in such threads.
Nonsense. Besides the echo-chamber quality of some of these threads you have the moderators and devs chiming in on one side of the argument. If it was poster to poster ratio that would be one thing, when the devs and mods jump in then it's another "wolf pack" level communication and exchange of ideas.
-
And this thread has been up almost a week without devolving into a flame war and getting locked. Let's keep it that way. "In before the lock/mod." doesn't really seem to apply.
Give it time. Once certain ideas are challenged the life-clock on a thread is started.
Creative Director
|
I'm curious what examples you were thinking of for Good matriarchal societies.The post-Wizard Land of Oz? The women rulers (e.g. Ozma) are uniformly more enlightened and competent than the men (e.g. the Scarecrow).Is female on male sexism better then male on female sexism?
james jacobs said Holomog is a Good matriarchal society.
I'm not up on Holomog. Is it a matriarchy by Patrick's "Institutional sexism" definition? Or is it just that it has female rulers?
We don't know. It's in Southern Garund and all we know about it at the moment is that the military appears to be mostly female, they ride dinosaurs, and they're vaguely described as both matriarchal and Good.
That's it.
I do have plans to expand on Holomog some day. They're kinda sort of being set up as a good balance against the evil of Geb, on one level, with the field of petrified maidens south of Geb being mostly Holomogian soldiers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The society of Middle Earth is archaic and meant to evoke the mythical past. Using "Man" to mean human is fitting in the setting.Yes, but "the mythical past" is also highly sexist, as Tolkien was well aware. As you point out, he was born in 1892, meaning that within his lifetime married women were granted the right to control their own property, to enter the professions, to stand for Parliament, and to vote.
I don't see any indications that women had any of these rights, even in the ostensibly more modern Shire. Just as a simple example, do we have any suggestion that any member of the Shirriffs was a female? Do we even have a suggestion of female leadership, such as a Mistress of Brandy Hall? (I note in passing that Peregrin apparently had three older sisters who were passed over for the position of Thain.)
"Ostensibly more modern?" The whole point is not it isn't modern. It's looking towards the past. Just because women had more rights in his time does not mean that they were equal or that sexism wasn't still around. It didn't even make causal sexism a minority opinion.
A fantasy writer today must contend with feminism's much larger cultural stake today. Readers will expect more female characters who do things. Even the 2000s movie adaptation gave Arwen a bigger role partially because they wanted more women on screen. (If you're more cynical, it's because they wanted to get their money's worth out of Liv Tyler.)
This wasn't true of Tolkien's era. The mere fact that he had Eowyn is amazing. Many other authors of his day wouldn't have had a woman who not only held her own in a fight but beat a powerful bad guy that none the male heroes could (though Merry helped too but he's not exactly Tolkien's society's definition of a suitable man.) Does this make Tolkien a feminist or even not a sexist? No. But it's better than many of his contemporaries.
As a whole, I do prefer Golarion to Middle Earth and gender equality is a big reason why. Middle Earth was great for its era but I love more what it inspired than what it is. I just don't want anyone forming an opinion from a wrong assumption.
I'm curious what examples you were thinking of for Good matriarchal societies.
Off the top of my head? The Night Elves from Warcraft fit the definition. Rigid gender roles, men were barred from positions of power even faced a slight prejudice. Unfortunately, the MMORPG ruined this characterization, both by flanderizing the leadership of the Night Elven society (completely unnecessary) andby abolishing the gender roles (Necessary, since barring certain combination of gender/race/class would ruin the fun).
The Lashunta from Golarion could fit the definition. We're told the race is matriarchal, and the race as a group is Good, so their society probably would be too. We don't have much to go on about specific societies, tough, only Mr. Jacob's word. I don't know if he used the sociological definition of "matriarchy".
The Elves of Ios, from the Iron Kingdoms, were somewhat matriarchal, IIRC, with an exclusively female pantheon. I can't remember specific gender roles, tough, so don't quote me on that.
Not so much enforcement of gender roles, but that may be because Tolkien sees them as natural and barely conceives of anyone wanting to break them.
Why, yes. The only logically possible way for a society to be both gender-biased and Good if it's something arising either from divine mandate (as the Night Elves), or biological predispositions (As Tolkien's Dwarves).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give it time. Once certain ideas are challenged the life-clock on a thread is started.
Challenging ideas isn't the problem. It's how it's presented that is, and how the poster interacts with other members of the community.
Well that didn't sound at all ominous. :P
"Ostensibly more modern?"The society of Middle Earth is archaic and meant to evoke the mythical past. Using "Man" to mean human is fitting in the setting.Yes, but "the mythical past" is also highly sexist, as Tolkien was well aware. As you point out, he was born in 1892, meaning that within his lifetime married women were granted the right to control their own property, to enter the professions, to stand for Parliament, and to vote.
I don't see any indications that women had any of these rights, even in the ostensibly more modern Shire. Just as a simple example, do we have any suggestion that any member of the Shirriffs was a female? Do we even have a suggestion of female leadership, such as a Mistress of Brandy Hall? (I note in passing that Peregrin apparently had three older sisters who were passed over for the position of Thain.)
Yes, the Shire is much more modern than Rohan or Gondor. The Shire is modelled largely on England of the 16th and 17th century England -- Bilbo keeps a clock on his mantle, and wears a waistcoat, while Lobelia carries an umbrella, all inventions of the 16th century or later. By contrast, Rohan and Gondor are pre-Rennaissance, or even pre Feudalism (I see no evidence of a system of fiefdoms in either realm). The closest cultural analogue is probably the Germanic tribes of Beowulf (600 or 700 AD).
So the Shire is roughly a thousand years more modern.
ETA: This isn't just in technology. Culturally, the Shire is modelled after the squirearchy of the 17th and 18th century, where most of England was controlled not by warrior nobles but by landed gentry (like the Baggins family).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give it time. Once certain ideas are challenged the life-clock on a thread is started.Challenging ideas isn't the problem. It's how it's presented that is, and how the poster interacts with other members of the community.
Indeed! I've seen lots of people disagree with the devs and mods on one thing or another. Only the rude ones seem to have problems.
|
|
Give it time. Once certain ideas are challenged the life-clock on a thread is started.Challenging ideas isn't the problem. It's how it's presented that is, and how the poster interacts with other members of the community.
Community would imply that we all share common values - we don't.
The only thing we all have in common here is that we are (generally) all gamers of one sort or another. We can't even agree on that.
Challenging ideas is the problem; because either the offender is deemed too offensive or the pack attacking him in kind gets too rabid in their responses so they need to be checked to maintain the veneer of civility. Challenging ideas is always the problem. If everyone here agreed (like many do in this thread) then there would be less need for moderation.
Well that didn't sound at all ominous.
Their website and their "community", they can ban whoever they want.
Power over people or the exchange of ideas is a great thing.
|
Creative Director
|
The Lashunta from Golarion could fit the definition. We're told the race is matriarchal, and the race as a group is Good, so their society probably would be too. We don't have much to go on about specific societies, tough, only Mr. Jacob's word. I don't know if he used the sociological definition of "matriarchy".
The lashunta are very much a great example of a good-aligned matriarchy.
Aux, why did you delete the emoticon, which made it obvious that I was not posting in a serious tone of voice?
Back on topic, if we're going to talk about gender equality and fantasy worlds, we'll have to get past Professor Tolkien to writers such as Joana Russ, Elizabeth A. Lynne and Barbara Hambly. You want to toss a couple of references to Lythande in there for trans crowd, that's cool too.
Community would imply that we all share common values - we don't.Give it time. Once certain ideas are challenged the life-clock on a thread is started.Challenging ideas isn't the problem. It's how it's presented that is, and how the poster interacts with other members of the community.
Only in the sense that "lightning bug" implies that it's charged with electricity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This wasn't true of Tolkien's era. The mere fact that he had Eowyn is amazing. Many other authors of his day wouldn't have had a woman who not only held her own in a fight but beat a powerful bad guy that none the male heroes could (though Merry helped too but he's not exactly Tolkien's society's definition of a suitable man.) Does this make Tolkien a feminist or even not a sexist? No. But it's better than many of his contemporaries.The society of Middle Earth is archaic and meant to evoke the mythical past. Using "Man" to mean human is fitting in the setting.Yes, but "the mythical past" is also highly sexist, as Tolkien was well aware. As you point out, he was born in 1892, meaning that within his lifetime married women were granted the right to control their own property, to enter the professions, to stand for Parliament, and to vote.
I don't see any indications that women had any of these rights, even in the ostensibly more modern Shire. Just as a simple example, do we have any suggestion that any member of the Shirriffs was a female? Do we even have a suggestion of female leadership, such as a Mistress of Brandy Hall? (I note in passing that Peregrin apparently had three older sisters who were passed over for the position of Thain.)
That's not really accurate. If you look at high fantasy as it existed before Tolkien, there are plenty of active female hero characters. For example:
The Faerie Queene (1590s) had two protagonists, both knights, one male and one female.
The Well at the World's End (1896) contains not one but two active female main characters who accompany the hero on his quest. They both fall in love with the protagonist, but they're still portrayed as heroic in their own right.
Not to mention that there were an ample number of warrior women in those Norse and Old English sagas that inspired Tolkien's work.
His work wasn't worse than most of what was contemporary when he was writing, but he didn't exactly break any new ground with Eowyn.
This wasn't true of Tolkien's era. The mere fact that he had Eowyn is amazing. Many other authors of his day wouldn't have had a woman who not only held her own in a fight but beat a powerful bad guy that none the male heroes could (though Merry helped too but he's not exactly Tolkien's society's definition of a suitable man.) Does this make Tolkien a feminist or even not a sexist? No. But it's better than many of his contemporaries.The society of Middle Earth is archaic and meant to evoke the mythical past. Using "Man" to mean human is fitting in the setting.Yes, but "the mythical past" is also highly sexist, as Tolkien was well aware. As you point out, he was born in 1892, meaning that within his lifetime married women were granted the right to control their own property, to enter the professions, to stand for Parliament, and to vote.
I don't see any indications that women had any of these rights, even in the ostensibly more modern Shire. Just as a simple example, do we have any suggestion that any member of the Shirriffs was a female? Do we even have a suggestion of female leadership, such as a Mistress of Brandy Hall? (I note in passing that Peregrin apparently had three older sisters who were passed over for the position of Thain.)
That's not really accurate. If you look at high fantasy as it existed before Tolkien, there are plenty of active female hero characters. For example:
The Faerie Queene (1590s) had two protagonists, both knights, one male and one female.
The Well at the World's End (1896) contains not one but two active female main characters who accompany the hero on his quest. They both fall in love with the protagonist, but they're still portrayed as heroic in their own right.
Not to mention that there were an ample number of warrior women in those Norse and Old English sagas that inspired Tolkien's work.
His work wasn't worse than most of what was contemporary when...
Just because he didn't break new ground doesn't mean having Eowyn wasn't good. Yes, there were other authors/storytellers who had kickass women in fiction before him. He is not the first. But, given his era, he could have easily taken out Eowyn or had her be man and no one would have batted an eyelash. The existence of previous warrior women does not invalidate his inclusion of one just as eowyn doesn't invalidate Gygax and Arneson's choice to make women statistically equal to men. Nor does that choice invalidate Paizo's choice to make women socially equal to men in Golarion unless specifically stated otherwise. These are all good things and need ta keep happening until sexism is no longer an issue in fantasy or the real world (which is unlikely.)
I have read, and I'm really sorry I can't confirm this, that he had Eowyn kill the Witch-King because he hated the prophecy twists of Macbeth. Macbeth's prophecies of "beware Macduff" and "No man of woman born" were, in his mind, setting up Lady Macduff to kill him. So he had Eowyn, a woman, and Merry, a non-human, slay the man no living man can kill. Given the huge army of the undead, the twist could have been that one of the male undead killed him and it would have worked. But he chose a woman for the role of killing a bad guy that Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and even Gandalf had no shot of beating.
No one's saying it isn't good to have Eowyn. But the inclusion of Eowyn doesn't make Tolkien progressive.
Give it time. Once certain ideas are challenged the life-clock on a thread is started.Challenging ideas isn't the problem. It's how it's presented that is, and how the poster interacts with other members of the community.Community would imply that we all share common values - we don't.
The only thing we all have in common here is that we are (generally) all gamers of one sort or another. We can't even agree on that.
Challenging ideas is the problem; because either the offender is deemed too offensive or the pack attacking him in kind gets too rabid in their responses so they need to be checked to maintain the veneer of civility. Challenging ideas is always the problem. If everyone here agreed (like many do in this thread) then there would be less need for moderation.
Well that didn't sound at all ominous.Their website and their "community", they can ban whoever they want.
Power over people or the exchange of ideas is a great thing.
Just a brief note: discussion regarding the community and messageboard rules should probably be posted in Website Feedback rather than this thread. Let's not derail this, please.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That could be, Larkos. If there's one reason he invented the Ents, it's because saw Macbeth, with a guy with a bunch of leaves and branches stuck on his helmet, and thought, "That doesn't look anything like Birnam Wood coming to Dunsinane."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't understand about this whole argument is why do people need to go to historical or literary sources for inspiration or credibility as to how to address this issue in their games? All writing is period, so it's going to be influenced by the standards of their day.
If you want it in, put it in.
If you have dozens of races and you want all of them to have gender equality or the issue of gender not be an issue make it so.