Category: Gender equality

In Tom Wolfe’s novel, “A Man in Full”, the main protagonist is the successful Atlanta entrepreneur Charlie Croker who seems to have everything but tranquility and satisfaction.  His corporation is mired in crushing debt but he has all the trappings of material success, and a new, younger trophy wife.  He divorced his first wife, Martha, after decades of marriage.  She begins to resume her life without him by getting back in shape.  She joins a gym and quickly realizes that women have changed, particularly in body type.  Gone is the hour-glass figure and everywhere she notices the absence of hips among the female fitness fanatics.  A female ideal has changed.  She dubs these women “boys with breasts”.

Harvey C. Mansfield, Harvard professor of political philosophy, wrote the book “Manliness” in 2006.  In it, he distinguished between masculinity and manliness.  Masculinity can, but not always, stray into beastly behavior (“toxic masculinity”).  By contrast, manliness in the ancient Greek is synonymous with “courage” and therefore tied to virtue.  A manly person – for women can also exhibit manliness – would protect the weak.  Bluster, bullying, and abuse is not the stuff of manliness.

Manliness must be differentiated from the modern slang of “BDE”, or “big d*** energy”.  At a recent campaign rally, Keri Lake (Arizona gubernatorial candidate) introduced Ron DeSantis using the earthy initials.  People enamored of Trump use it.  Manliness should not be confused with brutish bellicosity.

Why mention “boys with breasts” and manliness in connection with Amazon’s Rings of Power?  Simple, if the masterminds of the series, J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay, wanted to create a Middle-earth matriarchy, they could find no better device than to turn Galadriel into an Aragorn with breasts and refocus Tolkien’s tale on one of the three queens of Númenor, a total of three among the twenty-five rulers of the land in the legendarium.  The women’s characters were crafted to portray Mansfield’s manliness but lack the charisma to inspire a drug addict into an opium den.  And why the decision to exercise the creative arts to distort Tolkien’s story in this manner?  I suspect that something more fundamental is afoot, like the politico-cultural prejudices of a narrow social claque that gave us Jane’s Revenge (pro-abortion terrorism) and cancel culture.  They are the same crowd that ate up as gospel the wild smears against Brett Kavanaugh.  The bias is everywhere in our institutions and now unsurprisingly could be corrupting this rendition of Tolkien’s Middle-earth in the second age.

Or, conversely, it could be just a terrible misreading of the public’s desires from the top of the cultural pyramid above the clouds.  McKay and Payne may be doing it without awareness, mistakenly thinking that’s what the public wants.

Either way, we got an incoherent mess in this the first season.  The creation of Mordor was so off-the-wall that it could have been the product of an all-night LSD-laced bull session.  Tolkien’s Mordor was created by the evil super-spirit Melkor to be a land of volcanic activity.  Payne/McKay make it a product of the mechanical operation of turning a sword hilt like a key and voilà we have volcanic eruptions, bursting aquifers, and pyroclastic flows.  By the way, this pyroclastic flow doesn’t behave like a real pyroclastic flow.  Amazingly, magically, the hurricane of super-heated deadly gasses and fine ash doesn’t kill everyone in its path.  Galadriel, the queen of Numenor, and many others walk away as if they were only plastered with the dust from a shaken vacuum cleaner filter.  A pyroclastic flow buried Pompeii in AD 70. Talk to anyone who fled the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption.  Fantasy is riveting if it has some relationship to the real.  This falls into the category of laughingstock.

The speeches of the matriarchy are not, shall we say, awe-inspiring.  It’s not because they were made by women.  They are just simply stale.  Compare any of them to Margaret Thatcher’s refusal to bow to the pressure to compromise at the October 1980 conference of the British Conservative Party: “The Lady’s not for turning” (see below). Or, closer to home, Peter Jackson/Fran Walsh managed the stirring words for Aragorn at the Black Gate of Mordor in “The Return of the King” (see below), or Theoden’s rallying cry before the Rohirrim’s charge into the orc ranks in the Battle of Pelennor Fields (see below). They would steel the spine of anyone facing long odds. In comparison, the words of the Payne/McKay matriarchy are an insipid string of gibberish.

Then we have the disjunction of physical prowess and the natural female musculature and skeletal fragility of, say, the Aragorn with breasts, Galadriel.  There’s a reason why actors as diverse as Christian Bale to Chris Pratt to Michael B. Jordan bulk up.  It’s intuitive to match in some sense the physical action of a role with the appropriate appearance.  While it’s a stretch at times, it’s an easier visual sell.  But take Morfydd Clark’s Galadriel and her domineering physical antics alongside her frail muscle mass.  These are muscles that would have difficulty crushing a grape, let alone wielding a heavy sword to take down the mighty men of Numenor.  They’d be better casting a female MMA fighter for the role.  At least the gap between the action and her appearance would be lessened.  But better yet, reshape Galadriel’s character to fit Tolkien’s strengths for her.

Ludicrously beefing up the female roles was evident throughout, to the point of relegating the men to subsidiary positions in the story.  The Payne/McKay men are weak, petulant, or stubbornly wrongheaded.  All of a sudden, Tolkien’s mighty men of Numenor become . . . ? ? ? . . . .  One is left to wonder how they became so pivotal and deserving of great respect in the later trilogy.  Now, in the hands of Payne/McKay, the two sagas don’t relate in a basic sense.  What we have with the Rings of Power is something that appears to be an artifact of the present moment of millennials who were raised on identity politics and cultural reparations, warping everything to fit the manias of the present.  Some would say that this is a “woke” LOR and in many ways they would be right.

Even for the Harfoots (proto hobbits), while they have a male leader, it’s two teenage girls in the tribe who carry the action and wisdom of the group.  They dictate the clan’s thread in the story.  The males are limited to being sperm donors, objects of pity, and comic relief.

Women, women, girls, girls everywhere may be alright in another context, but it isn’t Tolkien.  Galadriel was strong in character, and according to Tolkien sparred with the boys, and had special gifts.  She is deserving of a prominent role in any production under the byline of Tolkien.  But Aragorn, or even Legolas, she is not.  Tolkien’s conception for her would parallel the English history of powerful monarchs like Elizabeth I.  Elizabeth was wily and shrewd, but not known for her swordplay with the Earl of Essex.  An adult Galadriel would use her feminine guile, wisdom, and special powers of foresight to command a situation.  Watching this production left me with the idea that this is Tolkien as the women of The View would have him.

We are not viewing Tolkien’s legendarium.  In the hands of Payne/McKay, it became another exercise in the modern fixation to turn women into boys with breasts.  No wonder transgenderism has gone viral and men seem to be settling into the role that Hollywood has assigned for them – as they are seemingly dropping out of the workforce, marriage, and college in substantial numbers.  Will I be watching any more of it?  Maybe.  I’d be interested in seeing how much further this thing descends into our modern cultural rabbit hole.

RogerG