Women in Tolkien-The Absurdity of The Modern Woman's Choice

Many have stated that JRR Tolkien's books are sexist because they lack female characters, and in particular female leads. The main characters of The Lord of the Rings, and the The Hobbit are indeed male. BUT if we take a look at Tolkien's extended universe, it becomes apparent that this is not really true. The importance of certain characters is deliberately understated but indirectly highlighted: while this is true of some male characters (Gandalf), it is true of nearly all the female characters. Why? because the society Tolkien is portraying is sexist. It does not value the choices and actions of women. But, who are the drivers of the plot? whose actions are the catalyst for the stories? predominantly, women: Miriel (who starts it all off), Galadriel, Arwen, Elwing, etc. Who saves the heroes at the plot-critical moments of the stories? Women. Who stand up to the biggest baddest baddies in the whole of the story's universe? women. Who makes the really difficult choices, the ones that change the fates of whole nations? predominantly, women. Where human, dwarven and elven males falter, women stand strong over and over again. The feminine's ability to create life is the defining characteristic of the "good guys": orcs can't reproduce, farm, or even produce equipment out of raw materials. Even Sauron does not create, he only manufacturers derivative works. He knows how to create, so he can show the elven smith Celebrimbor how to create the rings of power. However, he cannot actually create the Master Ring until Celebrimbor has completed the other rings: his work is derivative of the mortal elven smith's. Likewise, the orcs are not independent creations: they are tortured elves, all male and sterile. Mordor is a barren wasteland. Saruman can only raise the dead and mind-control the spiders, he cannot make the woods of Mirkwood grow like the far less exalted Thranduil can. Thranduil, who possesses no ring of power and no special gift from the gods, has created a paradisical garden realm: Saruman cannot do anything except corrupt it and destroy it.

In addition, the traditionally feminine traits of healing and nurturing are heavily associated with the most powerful heroes: from Fingolfin in the beginning, to Aragorn at the very end. Diplomacy, reconciliation, healing and forgiveness are the arms and armor of the heroes in Tolkien's fantasy. Being motivated by love is presented as a strength rather than a weakness. This reflect's Tolkien's own life experience. Waiting for the woman he loved, despite his surrogate father's objections: he was blessed by an unusually happy and fulfilling home life. Following his heart rather than what others deemed "practical", Tolkien ended up with a successful career. Writing what he loved, rather than what was considered "good" at his time, spawned an entire genre of literature. Bringing passion to his work, earned him the undying admiration of his students and colleagues, and revolutionized his field.  Adhering to his mother's chosen religion over the objections of his extended family and despite the church changing everything on him abruptly, brought him happiness and certainty even in the face of tragedies.
When Tolkien entered his lecture hall reciting the opening lines of Beowulf, his students were awed and electrified. Tolkien's translations of Germanic and Anglo-Saxon poems are still the gold standard: and it's not difficult to see why even for the non-expert reader. Tolkien did not simply translate the text: no, he translated the poetic meter. The words pulse with the passion that the medieval skalds invested in their art, and inspired other translators to do the same for the works they loved. Nowadays, the idea of a translation that closely reflects the original work's meter is not an unusual one: but only fifty years ago it was considered heretical. In his own time, Tolkien was called backwards. But anyone who says that should remember the other people who have been called "backwards" by their enemies throughout history, and the sticky ends of said enemies.
Tolkien is careful to give us a woman's perspective of Middle Earth too: Galadriel's monologue shows us the overwhelming nature of evil, and how vulnerable even (or rather especially) the greatest are. Galadriel's husband Celeborn is significantly silent: while her words might reflect their combined will, it is Galadriel's voice which is heard. Indeed, Galadriel serves as the promethean figure in this narrative: giving heavenly light to Sam. The vial she gives him contains the light of the Silmaril, which is the light of "heaven"(known in this setting as Valinor). She does this because she has the gifts of both foresight, and farsight: she can see into the future, and has been watching the progress of the Fellowship from afar. Far from being a passive observer however, Galadriel intervenes to give the Fellowship members important items that she knows they will need on their travels. The lock of her hair that she gives to Gimli is not just the gift of a celebrity to a fan, it's also a message to the Fellowship at large: I am watching. We can only speculate about what other moments in the books are influenced indirectly by Galadriel as she watches the Fellowship.
Galadriel also mentors another prominent female in the book: Arwen. It is significant that Elrond thought it bad for Arwen to be without a female role model, after the departure of her mother Celebrian. Arwen is Galadriel's granddaughter. It is with Galadriel that the book audience first meets Arwen: but even here she immediately impresses. We are not surprised that Aragorn is in love with her: Frodo, who is our narrator, is absolutely gobsmacked. By what exactly? By her poise and beauty yes, her elegance and the sense of mystery she radiates of course. Most importantly however, by the change that Arwen's presence effects on Aragorn. Frodo, to this point, was afraid of the ranger even after learning his name and identity. But when Aragorn leaves Arwen, he is preternaturally calm and his calm is contagious. Frodo's doubts about their mission are quieted, Gimli's anxieties are replaced with jolity. Merry no longer mentions second breakfasts or the privations of life on the road. Pippin is more Tookish (courageous) even than usual. Tolkien expertly shows the reader Arwen's inner greatness and her importance because of that inner quality via her effect on the other characters: even while the only attribute he mentions explicitly is her physical beauty.
Arwen is not some girl that the hero barely knows awarded to him as a prize for having completed the trials of the heroes journey. No, she has been there all along: helping him along the way. She is the reason that he can complete the trials. She is Ariadne, giving Theseus the magic string that allows him to complete the impossible task. Aragorn's task is equally impossible when the Fellowship of the Ring is first formed after the Council of Elrond. The trip to Galadriel's kingdom is not a side-quest, it is an integral part of the plot. None of Aragorn's later actions, and thus none of the later plot, would have been possible without that meeting between Aragorn and Arwen in Galadriel's house. Aragorn does get a prize: but it is the marriage that is the prize, not Arwen. Previously Aragorn was unable to settle down, and thus unable to support a family: his duty to protect the elven lands and assist the Gondorians took him far and wide. The very ability to marry someone is a prize. However, Arwen comes with rewards: she isn't just any woman. As the representative of Lord Elrond, she legitimizes Aragorn's rule in a way that nothing else ever could. As the brother of Elros, first King of Numenor, Lord Elrond is the only one capable of bestowing the crown that Aragorn wears. Thanks to Arwen, Aragorn is called Aran Elessar (Elfstone King) and can rule over Eregion (the region where Rivendell, the Shire, and Lothlorien are).  This area was not previously part of Gondor or Arnor's territory. He is the most powerful man that has ever lived in Middle Earth, but he was powerless to make that happen. Arwen gives him these gifts through her own choice: and this choice is one of the many b-plots of the books because she must work to convince her father that it is the right one.
What is Arwen's choice based on? this is not the choice of a 13 year old girl, rash and unadvised. Arwen is hundreds of years old, and has had well over a decade to consider her choice. It is not insignificant that Aragorn is a King. And indeed he's a king with a lot of work still left to do. Arwen sees an opportunity to exercise her creativity and leave her mark on the world, the thing that all elves in Tolkien's narrative want to do above everything else. Choosing Aragorn is not choosing marriage over career: Tolkien's setup questions the very idea of that choice. The choice that women in Tolkien's time were all too familiar with. Tolkien is pointing out the absurdity of that dichotomy. Women's choices are the foundation of politics, because they are the foundations of the society in which those politics arise. To choose to raise a family, is a political career. Arwen doesn't just want to be with the hero of the story: she has a political agenda of her own. Indeed, she is the one who has a political agenda: Aragorn is just sort of handed the crown and has never actually considered what he would do if he were king because he never thought it would happen. Probably thanks to Galadriel's foresight, Arwen is much more prepared. A person who claims to be a feminist cannot also claim that the so-called "empirical" measurements traditionally used by male critics for male-centered literature are beyond question. JRR Tolkien may not be a typical feminist author in the traditions that have been laid down by feminist authors since the 1970s: yet it would be ridiculous to dismiss this narrative that is radical in so many ways, including this one. His feminism is authentic and honest: because it springs organically from his life experience. His life experience that affirmed the importance of respecting feminine traits, women's perspectives and women's choices over and over again.

Wait, did Star Wars just become feminist under Disney?

Disney, Star Wars, and Feminist: three words that don't belong in the same sentence. At least, until Vice Admiral Holdo happened. Now, it's hard to say who exactly created this character: perhaps she is taken from the Extended Universe. I have never been a fan of the Extended Universe, and have not delved into it much beyond being aware that Han and Leia have a son and things don't end so well for him. Or perhaps she is a creation of JJ Abrams. What I think we can be very certain of, is that she is not a creation of George Lucas. Nor is the story of The Last Jedi. But it isn't exactly typical of Disney either. Subverting staple tropes of the genre is usually left for Marvel or European auteur directors.
Yet, here we have the subversion of one of the most staple tropes in the science-fiction genre. The rogue hero turns out to be wrong. Now, Poe isn't a "villain", and he certainly isn't capable of destroying the Resistance on his own. Nor will the Resistance face much possibility of dying out so long as Rey lives. Still, there have been two major deaths in the story and Poe's machinations do not make things better. Usually, when the head honcho general gets replaced with someone who looks like a politician, which Holdo definitely does, the hero who mistrusts this replacement turns out to be right.  Honesty and forthrightness are key heroic traits, and a hero who doesn't have them is usually at least shady. But Holdo definitely is not, despite her secretiveness. She even wears an actual halo.
Not only is Holdo a genuine hero: she's a tactical genius who ends up saving the Resistance from itself. I mean, she has purple hair: with the aforementioned halo. She wears a beautiful gown much of the time with a detached collar that flows into a cape. Very reminiscent of Queen Amidala, aka Padme, from the prequels. This makes sense as the Organa family were a rich family from Queen Amidala's homeworld of Naboo. They were friends of the Queen, and so agreed to raise her child secretly. Thus, Leia grew up with other rich Nabooans as her friends. Holdo is one such. Now, Star Wars has vastly superior technology to ours: and our modern technology already allows us quite a bit of luxury even while fighting a war. Yes, even while leading a hardscrabble resistance. If you really want to know, you can actually find out just how well the leaders of Al-Qaeda and DAESH live: it's not at all what you might think.
Holdo's soft and feminine appearance belies a no-nonsense personality. She is committed to the Resistance, and she means business. But she is also not outwardly passionate: again, subverting our expectations of a female character. Indeed, one of the most damaging and yet most consistently used tropes for female characters is as "the heart" or the emotional center of a group. Placing the burden of creating and maintaining relationships on women is not fair, and not realistic. That is not what Holdo is here for, Holdo is here to take care of business.
She is here to save the Resistance, and she is going to do it no matter what Poe or anyone else thinks. As it turns out, Poe is a whiny and immature idiot. His ego gets the better of him, which is what puts him in Holdo's crosshairs initially: then he does it again, costing the Resistance valuable lives and equipment. Holdo cannot bear the waste. Which again, subverts the audience's expectations for her. She is clearly very wealthy, thrift is not what we expect from her. This character is so unexpected that there has been quite a furor caused over her portrayal in The Last Jedi, because people don't understand what's happening. Ironically enough, the very reason behind Poe's ill-fated betrayal. There hasn't been suspense like this in a Star Wars movie since the years between A New Hope and Return of the Jedi.
Vice Admiral Holdo is a true feminist character, not simply a powerful woman who isn't portrayed as evil. Rather she is a character who actively confronts and subverts the tropes which lead to misogynistic portrayals. How a character dresses reflects the way they wish to be perceived. Vice Admiral Holdo is a military leader, who does not want to be perceived as such despite being very capable. Indeed perhaps her intention was in fact to confront notions about the proper role of women head-on. Naboo is a planet where women have traditionally ruled, and where feminine values such as commitment and thrift have traditionally held sway. We see this in the prequels. We also see in the prequels that Naboo is a paradise planet, one of the few in the galaxy where we see living things other than humans. While I very much doubt that this was George Lucas' intention, in hindsight it does make it seem as if a message is being sent. The male order of things, represented by both the Jedi and the Sith, is fundamentally flawed. Holdo represents a rebellion against that order: as does The Last Jedi itself. Again, clearly this was not Lucas' intention. He intended the Jedi to be straight heroes, and the Sith to be villains and for the tension between them to be considered good. But Lucas' creation is no longer his. Which brings me to an important point: even stories that have some frankly disgusting sexism in them can be turned in a different direction by a clever author.
Any society can evolve, real or fictional. Vice Admiral Holdo represents the evolution in the fictional society of Star Wars, and indeed the first glimmer of the world that could be established when the Resistance wins. Not "if" but "when".  No empire lasts forever. And when the dust settles on this ages-long conflict that has shaped generations: it will be a feminine order that reigns supreme under the likes of Rey, Leia and Holdo. A society that values the collaboration, loyalty, and good sense that these characters embody. A society that cares about it's members, and it's resources, rather than using them as pawns in endless and pointless games. A society that is not run by the loudest and angriest, but by the cleverest and most committed. No more bullies, no more Sith and no more Jedi. There will always be force-users, and perhaps always be a corps of light-saber wielding warriors. But Jedi, they do not need to be.
This is the meaning of the movie's title: The Last Jedi means the downfall of the Jedi order and with it the masculine order of plain good vs. evil. It means the rise of something new, as yet undefined. Yeah, it's basically just JJ Abrams pressing the big red button on the entire Star Wars franchise: but he's doing it in a really awesome way. After all, it's been thirty years and science fantasy has moved on from Star Wars. The tropes that were good back in the day, fall flat with audiences of today. People don't even have the same expectations of movies as they did back in the day. JJ Abrams catches a lot of flack, but he's actually something special in the world of cinema: a director who actually cares about the consumer. Movie tickets are not cheap these days, and neither are DvDs. But most movies still aren't worth these hefty price tags. Most movies are still little more than a marginally fun way to kill 2 hours. In the era of video games, that's bad. A JJ Abrams movie will never be that: even if it isn't the best quality movie ever made, like the Star Trek movie. You can't fault that film for it's character creation: it's faults lie elsewhere. Even that one left the audience thinking about who Captain Kirk really was, and what the Federation really is. The thing that most of it's detractors rail against, was actually it's greatest strength: it tore down the childhood idol of Captain Kirk, simply by showing us what was there all along. Just deconstructing tropes does not make a movie good (see, Suicide Squad). However, some tropes do really need deconstructing. Bravo Mr. Abrams, and Bravo Disney for letting him do it. There is nothing worse than a good story being ruined by corporate meddling, so I salute Disney and you can count me firmly in the camp of JJ Abrams supporters.

The Bechdel Test

The Bechdel Test, was made up by Allison Bechdel. Who was, yes, a feminist author. Let us start off by saying however, that this is an editing tool. Failing the Bechdel test is a sign of rushed or sloppy editing. Not a sign of a bad writer. Furthermore, it is not a test of feminism. It is a test of good characterization.
This is the Bechdel Test:
1) are there at least two women?
2) do they at any point talk to each other?
3) is their conversation about something other than a man?
It is not a test of feminism, because works that pass the test have been written which are definitely sexist. Not just one exception, but many exceptions. Let us take one of the most famous book series of the 20th century, The Chronicles of Narnia. Now, this is good writing. But it will not surprise the reader to learn that C.S. Lewis was famous for rushed editing: and that it shows.  The books reflect the sexist attitudes of their day, particularly in the character of Susan Pevensie. In the books, Susan simply becomes a vapid, rude, airhead with no explanation save that she grew older. The book implies that had Lucy been allowed to reach Susan's age she too would have simply turned into essentially a fashion zombie. But Peter, who is older than Susan, is wiser now than before. Almost a father-figure to his sisters and brothers. But do these books fail the Bechdel test? no, in fact they all pass it with flying colors except for the non-sequitor The Horse and His Boy. This book can be discounted, as the events in it have almost nothing to do with the rest of the plot. The reason that the Chronicles of Narnia passes the Bechdel Test so easily is simple: these are books about children, for children. There's no romance, so talking about men is not something the characters do very much of.
That the fix for Susan's characterization would have been simple, makes it even more glaringly obvious that Lewis just didn't care. The movie version of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, did it. The fix? give Susan and Caspian a romantic subplot. This not only raises the stakes for Caspian's final decision, making his decision to lead his people back home personally painful: it also makes Susan's subsequent reaction entirely justified. She's heartbroken, but she can't talk to anyone about how she feels. She sees Peter as dismissive, Edmund and Lucy are too young to understand, and the rest of the world wouldn't believe her if she talked about Caspian and Narnia and Telmar. Her hedonistic actions make sense, since she has no real purpose for living. Aslan's words at the end are no longer a final dig at Susan, but simply an explanation. Narnia holds nothing for Susan anymore because the one thing she wants more than anything else is no longer there. The Chronicles of Narnia is not the only book that is sexist but passes the Bechdel Test, it is simply the case where this is most obvious.
Of course,  it's also possible to write a feminist text and fail the Bechdel Test. Here we turn to the Turkish tv drama Magnificent Century. Feminist? yes, it exonerates a much maligned female historical figure, Roxelanna, and confronts head-on a system of slavery. The motif of caged birds appears throughout, a metaphor for the condition of the women in the show. Although the show revolves around the women: the only thing these women have in common is their husband. The show deftly uses their words to construct the figure of Suleiman Sultan, who casts such a huge shadow over the entire show despite appearing for all of a few minutes per season. The only thing the women talk about is Suleiman, and their male children: men. But this is a deliberate choice, it's not as if the author doesn't know how to have women talk about something else. Instead it's because these women have nothing else to talk about: everything else that defined a woman in their time and place is taken away from them. They are women without households, ripped from their extended families, and kept in slavery simply by the threat of being destitute should they escape. The only thing they share with the women outside the walls of the palace, is that they are mothers. Their lives are dictated by their husband and his servants, right down to the meals they get each day. And the camera is as trapped as they are. It cannot follow Suleiman outside the palace walls, giving us the perspective of the women and only of the women. In this way, it is feminist and it demonstrates a modern perspective. The way that the women obsessively talk about men and little else reinforces the confined nature of their existence.      
So, how do you write a feminist narrative? well, give a woman's perspective. How do you do that? easy, ask yourself what your mother, or sister, or female friend would think. Or heck, you can even ask them. Or ask me, I'm a woman. We so rarely get asked for our opinions that we are generally eager to give them. Every one of you knows a woman: if you use them as models for your female characters, you cannot possibly go wrong. And seriously: "I'm writing a book, but I'm stuck. What do you think <insert female character's name> would say here?" is a great pickup line.

The Feminine Myst...Critique

Yes yes, I made a pun. No groaning, puns are great! Like Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique  this blog aims to be a critique of literature and culture. Unlike that book, it aims to take a more lighthearted approach: and to critique more kinds of literature as well as pop culture (rather than high culture). That is, the culture of normal people not international elites. Literature here, includes not only books and plays but also films, tv, and even narrative-focused video games. 
Now, it is important that we all go in understanding what literary critique is, and what it is not. Literary critique is not deciding which works of literature are good and which are bad. Literary critique is about examining a work of literature, and the ways in which it reflects the world (or doesn't).  Most of my critique will be about whether the work portrays women in a realistic way, or an unrealistic one: and what type of gender roles the work seems to be promoting. I won't be making recommendations or telling you to avoid a work. Unrealistic literature is not bad literature. 
There are a few more terms to define here as well.
Feminist: the philosophy that women are, and deserve to be recognized as, equal to men.  Because women are equally capable and equally mature, feminists hold that they deserve to have the same opportunities as men. It should be noted that this philosophy is not inherently aligned with any political party: however feminism has been embraced by some parties and expressly rejected by others at particular historical moments.
Misogynistic: disrespectful or rude towards women. Hilariously, this word was coined in Ancient Athens, one of the most anti-feminist societies to have ever existed, to describe the Persians. I will tend to avoid this word because of it's political connotations and it's general extremely negative implications. The opposite of feminism is anti-feminism. 
Respect: awareness of the differences between people, whether individuals or groups thanks to differences in experience. No individual or group can dictate what another should do or feel, nor can they act on another without express consent.
Consent: an explicit affirmative answer to a question which both parties in a transaction clearly understand.
Because this will come up inevitably and these words are used incorrectly so often. These are scientific definitions derived from biological and anthropological studies respectively.
Sex: There are two biologically determined sexes: male and female. Females have eggs and the organs necessary for the reproductive process.  Males have sperm and any organs necessary to catalyze the reproductive process. Species also have secondary sex characteristics which are used for signalling while mating.
Gender: refers to an individual's social role, whether chosen or assigned. Each society assigns social roles differently, and this may or may not depend on biological characteristics. Individuals of a particular gender identity tend to have a relatively unified manner of dress and behavior, and tend to define themselves by a certain set of archetypes. They may gravitate towards certain professions or certain social institutions. Modern western society, unfortunately in part because of past feminists, has a general confusion about gender.
TL;DR: "man" and "woman" are genders: "male" and "female"are sexes. The two things may or may not match.