Something that has long bothered me, was that there are so few women in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit, I believe, has exactly zero female characters, and, by my count, there are but seven in LoTR. Most importantly, for one interested in RPing in ME, there is but one who can really be considered an adventurer--Eowyn--and she was not welcome to adventure with the great warriors of the Fellowship, namely Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli.

Now, I'm not interested in speculating on whether Tolkien was sexist or anything like that. I think it more reflects his times, and indeed the very fact that he has a woman be the one who slays Sauron's chief lieutenant says that he recognized that women could play a role in the great events of Middle earth. Still, the fact that Aragorn resists Eowyn joining his party has me wondering: how easily would would-be female adventurers be accepted into most parties?

Anyways, I'm curious about what others think. I think this is something that could make for interesting RP moments. Perhaps the adventurous young woman who picks up her father's old sword and tries to join is rebuffed by the party. Maybe she pulls a Chico from Magnificent Seven, and trails the group, eventually proving herself by coming to their aid when they are surrounded by wolves or some such.

Thoughts on female adventurers?

It seemed to me like this was subtly addressed somewhere in the description of the Woodmen (a comment about how because of their frugal standard of living and proximity to the Shadow that everyone, including the women, have to be pretty self-sufficient and know how to hunt, gather, fight, etc. for themselves). Because their survival depends on it (both individually and as a group), female Woodmen would be expected to have much of the same skills as any male that would be useful for adventuring.

Because of somewhat similar conditions (and lineage), I can see the same argument being applied to the Beornings as well. And, in fact, because a "Shield-maiden" is a thing in Rohan it seems likely that they do train their women (or at least some of them) to fight, ride, etc., even if they generally abstain from sending them to war.

Though it isn't addressed much, I've always imagined that the Elves were pretty egalitarian; just look at how powerful Galadriel is. I think it was from Unfinished Tales, but I remember a passage about how Galadriel razed Dol Guldur to the ground (or something to that effect) during the War of the Ring. And then of course there's Luthien, who for all intents and purposes is pretty much an "adventurer" (let's face it, she did the heavy lifting that allowed Beren to steal the Silmaril from Morgoth's crown).

As for the Dwarves...well, perhaps most people wouldn't even realize that there are female adventurers running around, they're so alike to Dwarf men

There is a passage in UT, in the tale of Cirion and Eorl that describes a Northman revolt against the occupying Wainriders. Although ultimately the revolt succeeded, it seems to have been a pyrrhic victory. The reason? The Northmen did not expect the young women of the Easterlings to be trained in defence of their homes.
I suppose that this could be taken to indicate that there is possibly a Scythian/Amazonian styled element to the Easterlings.
Does it imply that Shieldmaidens were anything but common amongst the Northmen? Or,that they were common enough, but the Northmen did not expect to find anything similar among their Easterling foes?

I am inclined towards the former and reckon that shield maidens definitely exist, but as individuals and that while women of every culture would pick up a weapon to defend their children, hearth and home, few are actually trained warriors. YMEMV.

I would definitely see female adventurers as having to prove their ability and not being accepted as readily in the company of (NPC) warriors until they had done so. Just like Eowyn rode to war as Dernhelm, I might see other females even having to disguise themselves in order to gain acceptance.

LOL!

Good points, all. I do remember the line re: the Woodmen and their women.

I always saw this as a shrewd political move on Aragorn's part, not an expression of disdain for the capabilities of a woman. Had Aragorn accepted Eowyn in his company -- certainly contrary to Theoden's wishes -- he would have essentially put himself at odds with the King of Rohan. I don't think her unblooded swordarm would be worth courting the animosity of Gondor's most important ally.

I think the challenges of a female adventure vary by race and background. Elves observed a fairly strict segregation of responsibility and role due to their thoughts on the incompatibility of things like healing and war (no Special Forces medics in their world, it seems); Galadriel provides a partial exception to this and I think you could argue that, more generally, Wood Elves probably weren't as "doctrinaire" about this division of labor. I suspect that Dwarf female adventurers would be rare in a large part due to their scarcity and the immense pressure they'd feel to bear children versus adventure. For Humans and Hobbits, I think the real discriminator would be familial responsibilities; a woman without obligations to marry, raise children, and whatnot could likely hit the road as easily as any man.

Tolkien never says how a female traveler would be perceived in Middle Earth, which gives us sufficient freedom to come up with our own answers.

I think female adventurers are awesome. My wife decided to start gaming with the group a while ago, and it has really improved the experience for everyone (she usually plays female characters). Often she is the group's moral compass (particularly important when I'm running - behave gentlemen!).

I think it's hard (or rare, at least) to see much sexism coming from the guys "in game", because they just don't feel that way IRL. That's not that this sort of thing has never reared it's ugly head, but never with my wife's characters specifically.

I played a female character for one session of Mage: the Ascension and then stopped because of the poor treatment of her (mostly different group). It was a bit of an "eye opener", actually...

Then again, we haven't dealt with many "extreme" settings in which this would play a major role. We never got around to playing WFRP, where the wifey was going to play a Brettonian knight (Joan of Arc type thing).

Honestly hadn't thought of it being so prevalent in ToR. I'll be sure to make it an issue at some point just for the great RP!

For me, thinking about the gender issue is a good way to add depth to my character. Since female adventurers typically have more barriers, I have to work that much harder to explain how she ended up with such a life.

For instance, my current character in TOR, Dagmar the Foundling, is an orphan brought to a Woodman family by none other than Radagast himself. She has the "Fairy Heritage" background, and people sense that there is something a little different about her. This is aided by the fact that Radagast is sort of like her godfather. And when Radagast is one of your referees, you've got a good chance of getting the job. Hence, she was accepted into the party rather readily.

My opinion on this may be coloured by the fact that I have daughters and have gamed with a lot of women over the years, but, I tend to run fairly egalitarian games. If a setting does not allow for and cannot be bent to accomodate female characters I tend not to be as interested in running it.

The extreme is something like King Arthur Pendragon which due to its Dark Ages British setting requires a lot of bending to squeeze in female characters as viable for game play. At the opposite end are settings like Star Wars and Star Trek which at least in theory have full gender equality.

For TOR I tend to lean a bit more liberal than Tolkien. I will allow female adventurers, but they will be less common than their male counterparts. I think adventurers in general represent a tiny fraction of the poulation so at least some of the raised eyebrows will be caused simply by being an adventurer, not neccessarily by being female.

Eowyn/Dernhelm was at least in part a neccessary plot device.

I do recognize that Tolkien's source material was heavilly male slanted. This, as well as the time he lived in undoubtably coloured his writing. We live in our own time and should tailor TOR or any RPG to suit our own fantasies.

As the Society for Creative Anachronism says "We recreate the Middle Ages, at least the good parts." Not history as it strictly was, but history as it should have been.

That was the first thing that came to mind for me. I appreciate the structure in place for female characters to be played "in character" for the setting, but it's so different from male characters as to be a different game.

I expect one or more female players/characters in our upcoming campaign, and it didn't even occur to me to make a big deal of it.

As the old saying goes,'it's horses for courses'.

I think that a lot depends on the emotional maturity and composition of the group of players. My own group are a bunch of reprobates and I don't even know if I would dare to introduce a female to the group.

I reckon that Brooke might relish the task of playing in a ME where males dominate and she gets to 'kick against the pr**ks'. She seems like an experienced gamer. However, when my two daughters grow old enough to play, I reckon that their ME will be a much more fanciful and egalitarian place.

My take is similar to Horsa's,

Middle-Earth might be male-dominant, but I"m not going to prevent female players (or males players for that matter) from making female characters, nor will I make it harder for the female characters to "fit in" socially speaking.

As far as I'm concerned, adventurers are a rare and fringe breed to start with, so female adventurers aren't so much more out of the norm than male adventurers. The art of TOR books offers plenty of inspiration for female characters at any case, and none puts the woman as a "princess to be save" or "prize to be won"; so kudos on the designers for that.

So while I intend to keep the female warriors/adventurers rarer than males, I have no problems with the players representing this minority. As far as NPCs, I intend female character to raise more awe than spite or mockery.

Glorfindel

Women are some of the most important characters Tolkien writes. Galadriel, Arwen, Eowyn, Melian, Luthien, Morwen, Nienor, Elwing: they're all central to the most important stories of Middle-earth. In many cases they're more powerful or important than their male counterparts: Melian is greater than Thingol; Galadriel is greater than Celeborn; Luthien is greater than Beren.

If Tolkien was sexist, it was a chivalrous sort of sexism. He did not portray women as lesser than men or as property. Every female character he writes is extraordinary in some way, and they are often more extraordinary than the men around them.

Let us not forget Tolkien's *other* prominent female characters. Ungoliant, Shelob, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. And from his literary sources Grendel's Mother...

These get some great scenes as well, and certainly are the equal to any male.

Tolkien may have had few female characters but the ones he had were poweful and competent in their own right.

The so designated Letter 43 provides a fascinating insight into Tolkien's view on relations between the sexes, both in literature and in real life. What's more, the personal nature of the letter exposes quite a lot about Tolkien as he was writing of intimate matters to his son Michael. A good read especially in the last paragraph where he proclaims "the one great thing to love on earth in life...!"

In Middle-earth, one need look no further than The Silmarillion and it's tale of the Folk of Haleth. There you will find inspiration unlooked for in the role of women in the Woodmen of Brethil for the time of the First Age. This parallels very closely how we might conceive the Woodmen of Wilderland in the Third Age. But, that conversation would be another worthy topic all on its own!

The HoMe, Morgoth's Ring numbers among its essay Tolkien's reflections on sex and gender in Middle-earth. The male and female sexes are not products of masculine and feminine embodiment respectively. That is, feminity is not an inherent property of women; nor are masculine qualities inherent properties of men. Nurturing and warfare are not modalities of the femaie and male sexes respectively. These qualities can manifest just as other archetypal feminine and masculine qualities can manifest in either sex. In this, Tolkien gives expression to nothing less than his pre-Modern Christian anthropology. It is worth reading.

In the same book, male and females Elves are described as equal in all things except the capacity to bear children. This capacity led often to a personal choice that occluded an individual Elven maid from war in Middle-earth. This as opposed to gender role or disposition being the driving force.

Then there is the archetypal forms taken by the Aiunur that enter Arda. The seeming sex of the Valar are not statements of sex or gender role, but simply expressions of who they are. For example, Orome takes on the form of man and he is the Huntsman. His being the Huntsman has nothing to do with his male form, just as his male form has nothing to do with this stereotypical masculine archetype of the huntsman. He is the Huntsman of the Valar and he assumes a male form, that is simply who-he-is. He could have just as logically assumed a female form and still been the Hunstman of the Valar. Except that would not be who-he-is.

Quite the cache of ambiguous material on which to build! What an interesting topic as I have two women adventuring in my campaign. After reading through this discussion and researching the sources, I am left with a curious question of how to translate this into my campaign. For indeed I shall...

As an initial thought:

For the Beornings, I would model their socio-cultural patterns on that of the Rohirrim.

The Folk of Haleth would provide the model for the socio-cultural patterns of the Woodmen of Wilderland.

The Elves of Mirkwood I would refer to Morgoth's Ring for the socio-cultural patterns of their society.

The Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain...? Don't dwarves come from stone anyway? Doesn't that mean I can sidestep the question when it comes to dwarves...?

Thoughts on these propositions...?

Regards,
E

"When mommy and daddy boulders love each other veeeerry much..."

Let me be clear: I don't think for a minute that Tolkien was sexist. If anything, he was horribly progressive for his age, when it come to gender.

Really, it's that, as a woman RPer, I like the fact that I'm playing a female character to constitute more than a line on the character sheet. I'm playing the role of a woman in Middle Earth, not an adventurer who happens to be female. So, I think about these things, and how to bring gender into the mix.

When it come to gender issue in my campaigns, I adopt a pragmatic stance and ask to the female players what they want from the game.
The standard options on the menu are:
-no gender issue at all, full equality. None of my players ever asked for such.
-Female adventurers less common than male ones, and no discrimination. Sometimes chosen, especially by players new the group (ie they don't want to force gender issue on other, unknown players).
-Women are discriminated, and have to fight a lot to prove themselves worth to be accepted as warriors/adventurers. I think this is the most "Tolkienish"among the options.
-Women are severely discriminated, relegated to feminine roles or travesty. See Pendragon etc.
The last two options are the ones usually preferred by my female players. I thin that, as Brooke pointed out, they want to be adventuring women, not adventurers who happen to be females.

So I have to ask: If we play an all female party and pretend women enjoy full and equal right in Middle Earth.... will it still feel like the "real thing"?

How much can one change before the game becomes something else? A different game? ... for better or worse...

Me personally, I would not want to change it too much. 1930s England had a pretty conservative view of women... and a lot of that is reflected in this setting and the stories that we have.

Extraordinary women that slays witch-kings? Sure.... but adventuring women will always be an exception and never the norm in my Middle Earth. And people around them will always think there is something "wrong" with them.

/wolf

Women were not as discriminated in Saxon and other Germanic traditions as they were in other cultures, such as Norman culture. They were the holders of the house keys and expected to keep the household running. In some cultures, men owned very little - just their shield,armour and weapons. Women were important members of the culture, with equal but different roles.

The way I see it, in cultures such as Dale they would be the financial person in any business while their husbands travel to trade. Essentially, the woman would run the business. In cultures such as the woodmen, they would be the defenders of the home while men range far to hunt. They could be expected to have the same skills and, especially when unmarried, expected to pull their weght bringing food to the settlement. Some men may look down on them because they aren't as strong, but others will respect their abilities.

The best example of this, of course, is Eowyn, who essentially serves as regent whilst Theoden is away at Helm's Deep, and whom he designates as his successor in case things go badly.

Yet, as you point out, women and men had different roles, and women's roles would generally be less conducive to adventuring. That's why, out of nine members of the Fellowship of the Ring, none were women.

And, no, I don't think Tolkien had opinions of women much worse than any man of his day, and if anything he was quite progressive. His treatment of Eowyn in particular shows that, in my opinion. Yet, he was still a man of his time, just as women and men in Middle-earth are men and women of theirs. And those time would not, generally, I think, have favoured women as adventurers.

In reading Tolkien it seems that most characters view women as being of similar status and competence to men, but in different roles and spheres of operation.

The Rohirim have no difficulty with the concept of Eowyn donning armour, and picking up sword and shield. Her role was not to go to war but to stay as regent and help defend the people in that way.

To me, an all female adventuring party in Middle Earth would require a strong backstory to explain such an unusual event.

I think what best suits the setting is to allow the possibility of female adventurers, but for them to be very rare.


Adventurers seem to face a fair amount of prejudice to begin with. Female adventurers may face more due to being in such a doubly untraditional role. I don't see that they will face a lot of sexist "only a woman" type comments though.

And of course, in most RPGs, this is almost inevitably the case. Since there are far more men in the hobby than women, and since most players tend to run characters of their own gender (I have, for instance, never ran a male character), female adventurers/heroes/shadowrunners/whatever-term-the-setting-uses tend, in practical terms, to be the minority.

I think that the difference is that, whereas in, say, Shadowrun or Star Wars, one can assume that there are a lot of female adventurers, runners, whatever, out there, even if your party just happens to be predominantly male, in TOR the gender disparity is actually representative of how things operate in that world.

Constant warfare - with new battles occurring every few centuries - has had the effect of reducing the capabilities of Elves and Dwarves by way of attrition. Knowledge and skills have been lost, as Masters are destroyed by war. Coupled with both races' low birth rates, this means it takes centuries to return to prior population levels. Frequently just in time to provide fodder for the next engagement.

With Men the birth-rate would appear to be less of an issue. Except here too Tolkien constantly decimates the population (Numenor; Minas Ithil/Morgul; Osgiliath; Arnor in general, Annuminas and Fornost specifically). Then their are the two Fell Winters, the Wainriders, the Kin-strife, the Flood and the Plague.

None of the Free Peoples has exceeded the capacity of their respective domain's productivity. There is substantial room for growth, if sufficient manpower exists to utilized unused resources. Tolkien seldom makes reference to villages or other settlements though, leading one to think Middle-earth is almost empty.

Effectively Middle-earth is experiencing a 'dark age' in that knowledge and skills are being lost, profoundly undermining population growth. With the loss of this knowledge and skills, all aspects of daily life are adversely effected. Mines are abandoned due to orcs and the requisite skills are forgotten - but the impact of the loss of the manufactured goods must bot be forgotten either. Medical knowledge deteriorates as we see in Return of the King. Trade is hampered by orc raids, leading to ill-feeling and ignorance of neighbors (re: Gimli's view of Lothlorien). I am sure the implications are farther reaching, but you get the idea.

So the loss of a single female who might bear a child has a substantial impact on these people's population rate. I think the loss of even potential offspring is serious to these races. While PJ's movies made some drastic changes to the LotR, I think that Arwen's response to the imperative of future offspring was correct (when viewed from an Elven perspective).

So the cultural attitude against female adventurers is not so far-fetched or seemingly sexist per se. Cultural survival would be deemed more important than most character's adventuring impetus.

Understand, I most definitely do not support a sexist attitude, but rather I think I can see why female adventuring characters are not prominent in Middle-earth as Tolkien wrote it.