#patriarchy cw – @dyspunktional-leviathan on Tumblr

Anonymous asked:

Wait, Eowyn is Denethor's most pertinent narrative parallel? Please you must explain this!

How dare you read my secret tags those are private URR... MM alright you get a sneak peak of a longer essay- DENETHOR AND EOWYN'S NARRATIVES... are literally the same up until the very end... They are both in a position of suffocating responsibility and gendered demands, tied to duties that force them to watch on, agonised, as loved ones die around them (Boromir and Theodred). Duties, by the way, of care and 'stewardship' to things that they both love and yet also feel caged by (Minas Tirith and Theoden though you could argue Eowyn is also caring for Rohan as a whole). But they are also angry with some family members, misunderstood, frustrated with their attitudes towards both their relationship AND the war (Faramir and Eomer). Yet at the same time they still hold to their duties, bitterly, but nobly and dauntlessly, until they believe all hope is lost and only then they make a defiant act of gender AND responsibility rebellion that they intend to be the end of their lives. Denethor- DENETHOR IS LITERALLY 'BURNED WITH THE HOUSE' but he does it before he has leave to do so. Aragorn still had need of it! And self immolation to protect yourself from 'defilement' is a common feminine narrative in many cultures. And that's only one of MANY of Denethor's very feminine traits but THAT is for a trans denethor post that I still haven't written which will just be @illegalstargender 's literal thesis. Anyway I'll leave you with this;

Eowyn:

"All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more. But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death."

Denethor:

"Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons? For I can still wield a brand."

lesbiansforboromir

I totally forgot the most important part which is that they are ALSO both plagued by sinister old men who are into them for all the wrong reasons and are trying to manipulate their respective countries for their own suspect ends (Gandalf and Grima)

lesbiansforboromir

Now that the presentations from the Tolkien Society’s seminar are up I can share one of my favourite slides from Cordeliah Logsdon’s presentation >:3

The left are all quotes about Eowyn, the right are quotes about Denethor. Their relevance is even more pertinent when you hear the passages read aloud and in full on the video.

lesbiansforboromir

Remembered something I needed to add to this but Aragorn’s final confrontation with Eowyn and Gandalf’s final confrontation with Denethor are LITERALLY the same scene, same character motives, same despair and with the same defiant end.

“Too often have I heard of duty,” she cried. “But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?”

“Few may do that with honour,” he [Aragorn] answered.

Versus!

“He will not wake again,” said Denethor. “Battle is vain. Why should we wish to live longer? Why should we not go to death side by side?”

“Authority is not given to you, Steward of Gondor, to order the hour of your death,” answered Gandalf.

DO YOU ALL SEE HOW IT’S LIKE... TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN? Eowyn, whom has never had control of her life or been able to fight back against the ever growing despair haunting all of them, caged by duty, just wants to spend her last moments in angry ferocious defiance and battle. MEANWHILE DENETHOR, who has been caged by duty into always struggling and battling, having all the responsibility that comes with his position but none of the freedom, forced to ‘spend even his sons’ in Gondor’s defense, wants to spend his last moments with his son and for them both to be safe from this perpetual war and pain forevermore, DO YOU SEE HOW IT’S LIKE THIS GENDER ROLE REVERSAL THING DO YOU SEE?? With Gandalf and Aragorn serving as mouthpiece for the paternalistic society they are both rebelling against? I go insane about it. Did you know that in draft versions of lotr, Eowyn died? I hate this book so much

#A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A #blorborbs #general blorbing tag #fandom meta #lotr #tolkien #lotr meta #tolkien meta #denethor ii #eowyn #gandalf #aragorn #caps cw #suicide mention #death mention #war mention #patriarchy cw

dyspunktional-leviathan reblogged

characharing

ittybittytatertot

I don’t think adding nonbinary to Victorian’s gender system would’ve fixed their weird sexism. If anything I think it would’ve made them weirder and sexismier

ittybittytatertot

Someone needs to write a satirical etiquette book in the style of a Victorian with rules for Ladies, Gentlemen, and Honorables in Polite Society.

mrfandomwars

Oh please someone do this

ittybittytatertot

It would go something like

Of course, fashionable Honorables may be consternated by the proper open collar blouses as there is no way to tie a bow or cravat around it. In such cases a bow may be worn upon the top hat. Or a slim ribbon may be tied around the bare neck, however, given the salacious reputation some hold for such an accessory, that is best left to married Honorables.

ittybittytatertot

YES. the way this hasn’t left my mind….Like okay they’re still Victorians. They’re still sexist and homophobic. My thought for this alternate history is third gender people are expected to only marry into already married couples. And they’d probably throw in a lot of Christian Holy Trinity and Mary Joseph God imagery to religiously validate triads.

Or three people (of all different genders of course bc again. They’re Victorian) could marry all at once but the courting situation would be a nightmare.

My question is,,, would Honorables have a dowry?

bemusedlybespectacled

First thought: coverture. Coverture is the legal idea that a married couple is one entity, with the wife not having an actual legal identity of her own. This is why there's the old-fashioned convention of women taking on their husband's entire name (e.g. "Mrs. Robert Smith"), why men could control any inheritance or money their wives had, and also the origin of some now-obsolete laws (like making it impossible for a wife to sue her husband for damages, because it's as if she was suing herself).

This is why it was so important for women to marry well: even if you worked as a married woman (and many women did), your money wasn't actually yours. It's one thing to have to live with a drunk asshole; it's worse to have that drunk asshole be the sole person who decides if that paycheck goes towards rent or more booze.

So, having a trinity/three parts of one whole entity would totally fit Victorian ideas of coverture. I think you'd still have it be men > everyone else, because they'd expect some kind of hierarchy, and even within the Trinity, God is still the leader.

Second thought: separate spheres. The Victorian era was very heavily focused on men being involved in the "dirty" business of work/politics/etc., and women being more morally pure and better suited to the domestic sphere (the whole "angel of the house" thing). Obviously this wasn't actually or practically true a lot of the time, but it was the aspired-to standard, the thing you'd measure people against to say if they were acting appropriately as members of their gender or not.

So you'd need a third sphere for Honorables to inhabit that is completely separate from the work/domestic dichotomy, or create an entirely different three-way dichotomy. Basically, you'd need a thing to point to, like "X is very ladylike" or "Y is not manly," but for Honorables.

So, extrapolating:

You'd still have "Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith," it'd just be, "Mr., Mrs., and Mx. Robert Smith" (differentiating by title, not by first name). I could actually see there being a different title for unmarried vs. married Honorables, like Master vs. Mister or Miss vs. Madam/Missus. Mix vs. Max, maybe?
I think Honorables would definitely need to have some kind of dowry. It actually might be even more necessary, because unless the guy is insanely wealthy on his own, you're going to need enough money to support three people, not just two.
I'm having trouble coming up with a third sphere, but whatever that third sphere was, you'd need to heavily police it. "You can't do X, that's for Honorables" has to be part of the culture. And you'd need to police it with as much weird pseudoscientific and/or religious justification as possible. Like, you need "women's brains physically can't handle the strain of learning math" but to explain why Honorables can't swim, or whatever.

imperatorsapphiosa

I think the third sphere might be something in the domain of the spiritual mediator; “honorables” are perceived as more connected to god in a way that allows them to smooth the transition between the inside and outside spheres. Honorables would be expected to handle the family’s spiritual life, and ensure that the husband and wife be functional with each other.

#oh my god #also yep thought about spirituality too #misc save tag #needs more tags #alternate history #nonbinary #victorian england #christianity cw #patriarchy cw