My impression is that outside of a few extreme outliers such as Galadriel, women in Tolkien's works are mainly apt to fight only when left undefended, such as when their men are away at war, or perhaps in a situation where defeat means annihilation of their people anyway.
Time to pull out that quote from "Laws and Customs Among The Eldar"
In all such things, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the neri and nissi (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal – unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the nissi the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the neri. There ae, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a nér can think or do, or others with which only a nís is concerned. There are indeed some differences between the natural inclinations of neri and nissi, and other differences that have been established by custom (varying in time and place, and in the several races of the Eldar). For instance, the arts of healing, and all that touches on the care of the body, are among all the Eldar most practiced by the nissi; whereas it was the elven-men who bore arms at need. And the Eldar deemed that the dealing of death, even when lawful or under necessity, diminished the power of healing, and that the virtue of the nissi in this matter was due rather to their abstaining from hunting or war than to any special power that went with their womanhood. Indeed in dire straits or in desperate defence, the nissi fought valiantly, and there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals. On the other hand many elven-men were great healers and skilled in the lore of living bodies, though such men abstained from hunting, and went not to war until the last need.
Luthien is a demi-goddess, her mother being a Maia. She has authority to act, and it's not by physical fighting (riding around on horseback waving a sword) that she overcomes enemies, it's by magic and the innate spiritual strength and rightness she possesses. She puts Melkor to sleep using what is basically magic, though that's a complicated concept in Tolkien's work, not by fighting him to a standstill.
She does throw down Tol-in-Gaurhoth, but that is after Sauron surrenders it to her, so once again that is "I have legitimate authority here and by my innate spiritual/magical abilities I can cast this down".
And then she gives all that up for love, and becomes mortal, and dies and leaves the Circles of the World.
HereAndGone
1d ago
Even Tolkien had a few badass girlboss warriors in LoTR.
Mainly (1) Eowyn, and she is suicidally depressed, looking for her culture's validated "glorious death in battle" as the only worthy and honourable ending to a life because she can't see any better outcome for her. Her healing comes when she puts all that behind her and sees the hope of a meaningful life:
"Do not scorn the pity that is the gift of a gentle heart, Eowyn! But I do not offer you my pity. For you are a lady high and valiant and have yourself won renown that shall not be forgotten; and you are a lady beautiful, I deem, beyond even the words of the Elven-tongue to tell. And I love you. Once I pitied your sorrow. But now, were you sorrowless, without fear or any lack, were you the blissful Queen of Gondor, still I would love you. Eowyn, do you not love me?'
Then the heart of Eowyn changed, or else at last she understood it. And suddenly her winter passed, and the sun shone on her.
'I stand in Minas Anor, the Tower of the Sun,' she said, 'and behold! the Shadow has departed! I will be a shieldmaiden no longer, nor vie with the great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying. I will be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren.' And again she looked at Faramir. 'No longer do I desire to be a queen,' she said.
Then Faramir laughed merrily. 'That is well,' he said; 'for I am not a king. Yet I will wed with the White Lady of Rohan, if it be her will. And if she will, then let us cross the River and in happier days let us dwell in fair Ithilien and there make a garden. All things will grow with joy there, if the White Lady comes.'
'Then I must leave my own people, man of Gondor?' she said. 'And would you have your proud folk say of you: "There goes a lord who tamed a wild shieldmaiden of the North! Was there no woman of the race of Numenor to choose?"'
'I would,' said Faramir. And he took her in his arms and kissed her under the sunlit sky, and he cared not that they stood high upon the walls in the sight of many."
(2) Galadriel, and she has put the "riding around on horseback waving a sword" days behind her in her youth, which again were not so much for "badass girlboss warrior" reasons but "fight or die" reasons; crossing the Helcaraxe was not a fun stroll.
"I know what it was that you last saw,' she said; `for that is also in my mind. Do not be afraid! But do not think that only by singing amid the trees, nor even by the slender arrows of elven-bows, is this land of Lothlórien maintained and defended against its Enemy. I say to you, Frodo, that even as I speak to you, I perceive the Dark Lord and know his mind, or all of his mind that concerns the Elves. And he gropes ever to see me and my thought. But still the door is closed!"
The one who is closest to "badass girlboss warrior" is Aredhel, and her wilfulness gets her into trouble.
(3) Maybe Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who takes on a human-sized Ruffian with only her umbrella 😁
‘That’s right!’ put in Young Tom. ‘Why, they even took Pimple’s old ma, that Lobelia, and he was fond of her, if no one else was. Some of the Hobbiton folk, they saw it. She comes down the lane with her old umberella. Some of the ruffians were going up with a big cart.
‘“Where be you a-going?” says she.
‘“To Bag End,” says they.
‘“What for?” says she.
‘“To put up some sheds for Sharkey,” says they.
‘“Who said you could?” says she.
‘“Sharkey,” says they. “So get out o’ the road, old hagling!”
‘“I’ll give you Sharkey, you dirty thieving ruffians!” says she, and ups with her umberella and goes for the leader, near twice her size. So they took her. Dragged her off to the Lockholes, at her age too. They’ve took others we miss more, but there’s no denying she showed more spirit than most.’
HereAndGone
4d ago
"Agreeing to the idea in principle" but when it comes to making it happen, it's all on OP. He has to buy a house or other dwelling in the city. She is not putting a penny towards this. Even though it's supposed to be "and then we can live together".
It well may be she doesn't want any kind of closer relationship with anyone and this is what suits her, I've read stories of "famous author doesn't live with her husband and they have two separate houses" before. Long-distance boyfriend that they have a close friendship but only have to meet face-to-face and be together for short periods at a time might be all she wants in a relationship.
But it would be kinder and more honest of her to say that, instead of a string of excuses. Perhaps she doesn't even know herself, though, what exactly she wants: 'this works, why mess with it, if it ain't broke don't fix it'.
one thing that we both agree on is that we should only calculate affordability based on my assets and income.
That's the red flag for me. This isn't "we've only been dating six weeks, it's way too soon to move in together". This is "it's been ten years, I want to be with her permanently, she won't move to where I am, I can't afford to buy a house where she wants to live" so why the hell is it "you have to pay for it all, sugarbuns" on her part?
If this is a move meant to make it so they can be together for good (up to marriage, even) then it should be a joint purchase. "All in your name" only works for "so if I want to do a midnight flit tomorrow, I won't be on the hook for the mortgage" and midnight flits are not "you are my forever snookums".
I am going to be a total bitch here and ask OP: are you sure there isn't a boyfriend in the city for the time she isn't with you? Friend with benefits, situationship, whatever the hell they want to call it, because this sounds (and again, we're only getting one side of the story) much too comfortable on her part for what is ten years of 'twice a month if we can make it' relationship.
HereAndGone
4d ago
If it's not making sense after ten years, it's never going to make sense.
Again, I'm diagnosing a situation based on no knowledge except what you've provided here, but it sounds like that from her side, things are fine as they are and she has no wish to change them. You seem to be the one who wants the permanent committed relationship. You say she says she misses you and wishes you could be together, but again from what you say, she's doing nothing about that.
You're doing the research online. You're trying to find alternatives and compromises. From your description, her view is "move here, not necessarily in with me, so I can keep what I already have plus be able to see you more easily and more often".
I dunno. Sounds like the saying ""In love, there is always one who kisses and one who offers the cheek". But if you want this to work, maybe it can. I'm hesitant to say "start making demands" because that's a great way to start a fight, but can you ask her does she really think your problems will let you just move to the city like she wants? What's her suggestion for overcoming "I would lose her simply because we couldn't afford to be where she wants to be." Is she willing to move somewhere in the city that is within your current means, or is that also a big no-no? If it's going to be home for both of you, what assets is she bringing to this and why is it all on you to pay for a new house?
HereAndGone
6d ago
It's hard to diagnose a total stranger, but I have to ask you this: it's been ten years, has she ever hinted at marriage? Asked if you want to get married someday? Talked about friends getting married? Have you ever tried proposing or even hinting you want to marry her?
Because if it's ten years and you're not even living in the same city, this does not sound like "rest of my life relationship" on her side. I have some sympathy for her as a non-driver myself (it's easy to say 'oh just get a lift, I'll drive you anywhere' but it's a lot harder depending on family members to be available when you need that transport to a certain place or trying to get taxis or trying to fit bus schedules around 'I need to be in this place at this time on the dot'), but I can't see how you guys are working this out. Do you visit her in CITY regularly? Does she visit you?
Right now, it sounds like you are both living what amount to independent lives and she's happy with that. Apart from the whole transport and job reasons, I hate to say it, but it sounds like she's not eager to have you move in with her/she moves in with you and start living together (and maybe wedding bells in the near future). Some people can make that work, but if you want more and she doesn't - time to rip the bandage off completely. Talk to her about "do you want to be with me? do you want marriage? do you see us as forever?"
HereAndGone
6d ago
Most Americans do not think middle schoolers should be having sex with each other, even on birth control
I really hope this is so, but you know yourself: the Very Online Activist set that arrange protests with pink knitted hats and had Kamala Harris making speeches about how she was fighting for reproductive justice (or whatever the term of art is today) are the ones who like to use these examples of "so you're gonna put a 15 year old on the sex offenders list just for sleeping with his girlfriend, huh?"
HereAndGone
6d ago
Only if it's named after the city, I guess!
HereAndGone
6d ago
Oh, I didn't go next, nigh or near any Trek once Disco hit the screens. I stayed well away from Picard (once bitten, twice shy) and by all accounts that was the best decision, though even there apparently they had to go back to classic Trek roots for the ending?
Snakeroot addict ex-officer Raffi livin' in poverty in the desert because the system and The Man done her dirty and down - ugh. Yeah, drop that anvil on our heads several times so we get the point about WOMEN, MINORITIES, SYSTEMIC RACISM, WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE, why don't you?
That's not Trek, not TOS Trek and if it's gone downhill to that degree by Picard's time then we really are in the Reboot timeline and not Prime.
HereAndGone
6d ago
HereAndGone
6d ago
The implication here being that Ferengi were modeled after Jews and they work in industries of vice?
They were explicitly compared to "Yankee traders" at their introduction, so wrong minority group offended, I guess?
HereAndGone
6d ago
If he's the brother of John Green, that guy got chased off Tumblr for being Problematic a few years back, so Hank is probably being careful not to step over any lines.
(John Green was the classic Milkshake Duck meme: extremely popular for a good while, then of course the inevitable backlash).
HereAndGone
7d ago
Regarding Catholicism, at least, you could replicate wine and unconsecrated wafers (as long as the elements were in line with the rubrics). You can't take a consecrated host and replicate that as a communion host, though. You'd need to have a priest there to perform the consecration.
For the Protestant denominations where it is an ordinance not a sacrament, replicating wine and wafers would seem to be okay. Make that grape juice and wafers, I imagine, for those with the prohibition on alcohol. I can't see much difference between replicator communion kits and these (your choice of juice and cracker or wine and round wafer! now gluten-free!).
There was also that terrible episode with Riker and the non-binary alien, which was supposed to be an After-School Lesson about gayness and tolerance, but which could also be applied to transness if one wanted.
It was done so badly, though. Riker of all people?
The better one was with Dr. Crusher and the Trill character where Crusher is in a relationship with a male Trill, he dies, the symbiont has to be placed in a new host, and that one turns out to be female. The symbiont/new host is willing to keep the relationship going, but Crusher eventually turns it down.
So far as I remember, the reasoning behind all the gay relationships being lesbian is because they could get lesbian kisses past the censors, but no way (at the time) would two guys in any kind of explicit relationship be acceptable.
I suppose the more recent series have explicit homosexual characters, where it's a recurring part of their character rather than incidental to an episode theme?
Oh, God. Disco Trek. There was a gay couple there, which in itself wasn't the worst thing. The worst thing is that one of the couple was the crazy mushroom-obsessed engineer, and once they introduced the spore drive (don't ask) I couldn't watch any of this show for the amount of wincing I was doing.
Mind you, if we are talking about Trek and homosexuality, this is the fandom that invented (or at least popularised) slash 😁
HereAndGone
7d ago
Star Trek (in the more modern incarnations) tried to be "spiritual not religious". The Bajorans got to be religious, but there was always the clash (once made explicit) about "yeah we know the Prophets are in fact Sufficiently Advanced Aliens".
Chatokay, God help that character, got stuck between "I want to practice my native heritage traditions but I can't believe in them as religious because my mother knocked all that nonsense out of me" so we got the worst of both worlds there: using the trappings of (all chucked in a blender) indigenous traditions from North and South America which came off looking a bit patronising at best, but no actual "why yes I do in fact believe in the spirits" because this is the future and science rules.
HereAndGone
7d ago
I get your point about abused kids acting out in unhealthy ways because of what they have experienced, but some at least of the little gang had stable home lives. "Let's all fuck our pre-teen classmate!" is really the first thing that is going to come into their heads in a situation of high stress facing a supernatural and magical monster?
Yeah, maybe. But it's more that however good a writer King is, and he can sometimes be very good, he was not a good enough writer to pull that particular scene off. I've read some things by writers which have left me going "That's diabolical but he or she writes like an angel". That scene had me just going "Stephen, no".
HereAndGone
7d ago
Ah, right. I knew someone was complaining about being Indian and not being let into the USA, but I didn't make any particular notes of user names.
HereAndGone
7d ago
Not just with each other, with someone X amount of years older than them, the precise number of years depending on the state and the law.
If 14 is old enough to decide to have sex, then by 17 you've been sexually active for three years, making decisions about your fertility, and should be experienced enough to decide if you want to sleep with a 30 year old, right?
That's the equivocation that sticks out like a sore thumb to me: 6 year old Johnny or Susie is old and mature enough to have a solid grip on their gender identity and know if they're really a boy or a girl; under-18 year old Susie is mature enough to decide for herself to have sex and can get a judge's decision to circumvent parental notification laws if she needs an abortion; 22 year old Susie was a poor helpless immature girl coerced into an unequal power-level relationship by wicked 28 year old Johnny!
HereAndGone
7d ago
At this point, Nybbler, I think all the waters are sufficiently muddied that we'll never know who actually did what (apart from Epstein and the previous underage sex charges brought against him, which were explained in a previous comment on a different thread).
Giuffre and what she might or might not have said - her book is out now and a lot of media commentary on it was dragging in Trump's name. I could well believe she might be coaxed into dropping hints about Trump and Epstein in order to sell the book, were she still alive; it seems she did exactly this (changed her statements) about her husband:
Giuffre also talks about her husband, Robert Giuffre, extensively. In the main body of the book, she generally portrays him in a positive light, describing him as a supportive partner and the person who "rescued her from Epstein and Maxwell's clutches". However, this positive portrayal became a point of contention after her death. In the weeks before her suicide in April 2025, Giuffre made public accusations that her husband had physically abused her during their 22-year marriage, and she expressed a desire to revise the book to reflect this. The book's co-author, Amy Wallace, addresses this conflict in a foreword, explaining the situation and the reasons why Giuffre might have initially chosen to remain silent about the domestic abuse in the manuscript itself. The published book therefore contains her original, more loving descriptions of her husband, alongside the foreword and other editorial notes that acknowledge the later abuse allegations.
So when there's money to be made, victimhood status, and pressure to 'name names' on someone probably not very mentally stable, I am ruling nothing out.
HereAndGone
7d ago
Apparently they also race-swapped Théoden (while retaining the Rohirric elements) which made me go "what the what?" But this was all back in 2023, I think?
If you're gonna go "Théoden is a proud Anglo-Saxon-African", then why not give him other African cultural elements? This is just "how can we squeeze some more coin out of the consumers?" and not anything more deep than that.
HereAndGone
7d ago
It's all tangled up, though, with Prince Andrew (who is losing everything over allegations that he may have had legal-in-Britain sex with her) and the overall media presentation that Epstein was providing 13 year olds for his rich and famous clients to fuck on his private island. "Okay I said I was a teen sex slave for Epstein, but that particular client nothing happened" is too fine a distinction for the current meat-grinder to make (particularly since Giuffre is now dead so we can't get her version of what did or didn't happen, or if she would change her mind and suddenly remember 'oh hold on, yeah I blocked it out because it was too traumatic but now I remember that Trump did rape me' like E. Jean Carroll).
HereAndGone
7d ago
I gave up on the Piers Anthony series because it got too uncomfortable for me, but the scene in "It" was still just too much. Like you say, I understand what he was trying to get at, but it still reads very badly (particularly when the girl's father is abusive, and may be going to be sexually abusive once under the influence of Pennywise, and her husband later on is physically abusive to her because he gets a sexual thrill out of it). Group hug surely would have been enough?
HereAndGone
7d ago
you never get a picture of these huddled masses because people don't process bearded males as "children".
Ironically in this context, there's a current murder investigation about asylum seekers as "unaccompanied children" who were put in emergency accommodation meant for minors, and it now turns out one of the "minors" may in fact have been a legal adult.
Vadym Davydenko (17) died following a serious incident at an apartment complex in Grattan Wood, Donaghmede, on October 15.
He had been in Ireland for four days and was staying at a Tusla facility for juvenile international protection applicants separated from their parents.
A suspect was later arrested as part of the investigation and charged with Vadym’s murder.
The male was also residing at the juvenile care facility at the time of the incident. His age was given as 17 in his first court appearance with his case last heard before the Children’s Court last month.
The Irish Independent has now learnt that inquiries have led investigating gardaí to believe that the suspect is in fact an adult male and not a juvenile.
Examinations into his background, including procuring a birth certificate from relatives, have indicated that he was over the age of 18 at the time of the incident.
Gaming the asylum system, you say? Surely not!
HereAndGone
7d ago
If the USA keeps importing the "best and the brightest" it will eventually turn into the country you are so desperate to run away from in order to get to the USA.
Or I am mistaking you for some other Indian commentator who constantly goes on about how they want to get to the USA for the big bucks and freedom of opportunity, are instead stuck in the UK which doesn't pay half as well, and there's a snowball in Hell's chance you'll go back to your native country because it's too poor and full of not-the-best-and-brightest?
Yep. In the book, when Merry first sees 'Dernhelm', this is his view:
More options
Context Copy link