Max B. Missing the Obvious
Rob E.

I'm beginning to think that these debates on Arwen and the warrior princess model are really facades for the argument of the modern feminist movement. So I'll discuss what I think is relevant on that topic. First I'd like to ask Max. B, are you a feminist? Here's one of the unfortunate fallacies that some within that movement make: That in order to be of worth, or equal to a man, a woman must be like a man, or must possess what we would consider traditionally 'masculine qualities.' As for goddesses of war and the such, I'm sure there's some historical figures that can be brought to our attention, but as to physical reality, that is a different matter altogether. Our 'bones' know that there are real, significant differences between men and women. Looking at humans as animals we conform to the majority of our other mammalian relatives in that typically the male of the species is more aggressive, larger, typically engaged in more risk taking behavior, and stronger physically. There's an obvious reason for this, nature is not redundant. Females give birth, nurture the young, provide stability in society and nature selected them to do so. This is not to say that on occasion a woman or group of women, have not taken up the sword, gun, arrow, or whatever, but generally speaking this is the exception, not the rule. The warrior women society is a myth, plain and simple. First, as any woman who competes in martial arts (boxing to traditional karate) will plainly tell you, there is no competition between men and women. Men are typically stronger, faster, etc. So why put an army of women warriors together who will almost certainly be defeated? Especially if extravaneous variables like technology and whatnot do not factor in. Secondly, men can afford to be warriors. Biologically speaking, we're expendable. It's not a coincidence that across the globe and across history/cultures that women live longer than men. Women as a group have been given the greater part of the tools needed to nurture life. Therefore an old woman is still very valuable to her tribe/community in that she can pass down her wisdom to her daughters/sons and still help rear children and maintain order in society. Lets look at it this way, if a group of men go off to war and all die but a handful, those who return can come back and eventually 'replenish' their society. If a group of women go off to war and most die, that society is on the way to it's death bed. Again, our 'bones' know this. We're more touched and angered when women and children are killed, they represent the future of our species. I suggest reading a really good book on this topic by a gentlemen by the name of Robert Wright. The book is called 'THE MORAL ANIMAL', which is written from the slant of evolutionary psychology point of view. Tolkien made room for the anomaly of the 'woman warrior' in Eowyn, no need to argue for more. Also, so that we may better understand my position, I submit that because women are not naturally selected to be 'warriors' this in someway degrades, or reduces their import, strength, or wisdom in any way. Yes we humans are more than the sum of our biological parts and no doubt if the need arouse women everywhere would pick up the proverbial 'sword' and defend/fight for the survival of what's important. However I think a famous woman said it best: "Men and women ARE different, what needs to be made equal are the values we place on those differences."