That makes me ask one question: is it so honorable to send a young boy (like Edmund) into a battle? Because it's a bit weird that Susan couldn't fight against the grownups and evil things and Edmund could...
Queens may fight - Girls may not 1940's vs 2000's
- Thread starter jillthevaliant
- Start date
Lucy put herself in the fight by finding Narnia, it's like the same thing. I just think that Lewis by not sending Lucy and Susan to battle was really doing that because they were girls, not because they hadn't reached the right age yet. And that the reason that Lewis did wrote that Peter and Edmund went to battle is because they were boys, not because they were old enough. Why he did that is another question. But i still think because women just didn't fight in those days.
A lot of it deals with tradition. Women have traditionally been the cargivers, nurturers, they're the ones who bear children...no, traditionally it wasn't honorable to send a woman to battle. Boys were only sent under specific conditions. The twins in HHB were told to stay out of the way. However, you also learn that Kings lead their people into battle. They hadn't been through a corronation in LWW at the battle, but they were the closest Narnia had to kings apart from Aslan and he'd told them that they'd fight. They were to be the leaders. Women traditionally didn't go to war. In most countries they still don't. Part of it has to do with the survival of a people group and part of it is just based on tradition.
MrBob
Well-known member
Even in today's Army in the US, women are technically not allowed to be on the front lines or in direct ground combat. Mind you, urban warfare is much different than than the wars of the past and the rules change. Women may be a part of a squadron, when the front lines come to them.
I also noticed, as Gwen, that the girls were made archers in battle. And Father Chistmas gave Lucy and Susan weapons meant for defense only, and only in great need. The other two gifts they got were more telling. Lucy was given a healing cordial to help those who are injured. Susan was given a horn to blow when she was in great need.
Reading the books, you will notice that Jill is the only girl who is described while she is fighting in battle, again, as an archer.
MrBob
I also noticed, as Gwen, that the girls were made archers in battle. And Father Chistmas gave Lucy and Susan weapons meant for defense only, and only in great need. The other two gifts they got were more telling. Lucy was given a healing cordial to help those who are injured. Susan was given a horn to blow when she was in great need.
Reading the books, you will notice that Jill is the only girl who is described while she is fighting in battle, again, as an archer.
MrBob
Lewis was a 'classicist,' writing in the classic tradition, which would take the view that women are much too valuable to be risked in battle, because the future is within them. It is not the idea that they cannot fight, but the idea that they should not be risked in a fight which drives their prohibition from battle. They are not to be risked until all else is lost and there is no hope that their men may turn the tide. Far from the boys being 'favored' over the girls by being allowed to fight, the girls are being favored with the protection of their lives, and within them, the future of civilization.
Not that all this comes into play in Narnia, where no girls from our world (except Queen Helen) have any babies, but it would have been the mindset of the author. Women had an elevated position in his mind, and could not be risked.
One reason American women soldiers are not allowed on the battlefront is that the military believes it is still ingrained within the heart of man to instinctively protect women, as Lewis would have, and that as such, male soldiers cannot be at their best while female soldiers are at risk near them.
Not that all this comes into play in Narnia, where no girls from our world (except Queen Helen) have any babies, but it would have been the mindset of the author. Women had an elevated position in his mind, and could not be risked.
One reason American women soldiers are not allowed on the battlefront is that the military believes it is still ingrained within the heart of man to instinctively protect women, as Lewis would have, and that as such, male soldiers cannot be at their best while female soldiers are at risk near them.
LadyAnneOfNarnia
New member
I don't think that's the point at all. I think that he means they are ugly for women to see and that they weren't made to fight and be amidst all the ugliness of it. He wasn't saying because they fight it's ugly. I firmly believe women shouldn't fight, why? Because they are women, God made them the way they are (not muscularly proportioned) for a reason! I don't think it's particularly ladylike to fight in battles...that's for the men to do. I don't think women have to prove something to anyone by being completely equal to men. Women have different things that only they can do, why not the men? That might sound funny but it's what I believe. Does anyone agree?
EDIT like inkspot or Miss Julie says...
Gwendolyn
New member
I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree. I believe men and woman are equal. Yes God has made our bodies different, but that's because we have the babies and we breast feed. Now, as far as battles go, I am a pacifist so I believe that no women or men should fight. But as far as what you said that women should be more lady-like and such, that is exactly what women were told before they could vote. I believe women can do everything a man can do, and more! For we can have babies as men cannot! hehe
...I hope i haven't offended anyone. And I shall add a cool quote from Sojourner Truth, who spoke at a rally for women's rights. It ties in a little to what I was saying.
LadyAnneOfNarnia
New member
Let me make a correction on what I said...I didn't mean men and women are not equal, I meant that women don't see that they are so they try to become more like men. And I think that's coming close to crossing the line of being boyish. It's just an opinion and I don't mean to hurt anyone by what I say...it's just what I believe.
Gwendolyn
New member
You haven't offened anyone don't worry.
At least you haven't offened me. I have a xanga too! check me out!www.xanga.com/violinfan
No you're entitled to your opinions just like everyone else.
I agree with you that when women try to be more like men they're crossing the boyish line.
Regarding equality, I think that it's not that men and women aren't equal, it's the way people percieve what equal means. Some people think that if a woman isn't allowed to do everything a man does or vice versa that they're not equal. I prefer to think of it under the idea that we make up one body with many parts...and no I'm not refering to the way that pertains to the spiritual gifts in I Corinthians. But still we were created drastically different to fulfill different purposes. There will be times when we have to step out of some of those rolls and we're equipped to do so. The ideas that men are smarter than women are out of date....not to mention entirely false. Women do give birth, nurture kids, and take care of the household stuff often and that's fine because it's what they were designed to do. They don't need to be totally limited to this. Guys were usually the sort of hunter/gatherers. That and they don't multi-task well at all. They provide for their families often and allow the women to handle everything else. Most people usually don't get that the "everything else" entails a lot. Yeah guys can be mr. moms as well, and can handle it, but it's different from the norm in most cultures across the globe. The guys have their rolls and the ladies have theirs...it's not a bad thing or less equal really...just different.
The perception of behaviors can differ as well. Some people thought that carrying ladies over mudpuddles was a way to let them know that they were respected and loved...it never meant that they were pansies who couldn't handle it or that they were less than the man...it was a way for men to show that they cared and thought highly of the woman. A lot of women would work hard to make a nice home for their husbands to honor them and this was one way for the guy to return the favor and say thanks. It's a matter of perception. If someone wants to percieve that they were being looked down on they will. It doesn't make it true under all circumstances though. It's not that one person is right or wrong, it's what we percieve.
Women are generally physically smaller. A teen girl vs. a large man would probably lose in a sword fight. I've handled real ren style swords and they are heavy. I'm in pretty good shape and struggle with them. I'd be sunk in a sword fight with a larger man. Most people knew this when swords were used and loved their women enough to say 'hey I don't want you killed because I love ya' not because the women weren't equal to them. If you look in the CoN the women are often archers where they're removed by space but can still contribute. It's a sort of preservation of life kind of thing rather than equality thing I think.
Some things may offend you that don't offend me because I think of them differently. That's ok. It's just nice to have a dialogue about it. In the movie I don't like that Susan is whaling with a sword on Telmarine soldiers. It doesn't befit her character as written in the books. It's not that she can't, it's that her character was written as Susan the Gentle. Now, if it were Lucy fighting it wouldn't bug me as much since she was known to do that to protect the kingdom...but it wasn't Susan's personality to do that in this manner. It's a concession we'll need to live with.
Gwendolyn
New member
I agree with this statement. It was never written that Susan was involved in battles, and I don't like it too much because it isn't her character. Not because she can't. Just because it isn't written that way. But who knows maybe it won't turn out so bad in the film. We'll just have to wait and see.
Another thing, when people say "women are equal to men," it's as silly as saying "this man is equal to that man." We will never be equal to each other. Men and women are not a homogenous group who can be said to be all the same. Some people have more brains, some people have more muscles, some people can run really fast, some people can work computers ... we try in the USA to give everyone an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams, but there is nothing we can do to make everyone equal -- some will always have more money, some will always have better hair, some will always be better swimmers...
Good point Inkspot!
Gwendolyn
New member
yeah i guess what we really mean when we say equal is that we have the same rights. And that one person is not superior to another according to God. He created all of us the same, in the sense that we are all human, and his children. we all deserve to be loved, to have food, to live our lives to the fullest. In that sense, we are equal. But in other ways we are not for we all have different opinions and dreams and talents. Our backrounds are different, our skin is different, our experiences are different. So, we are all different, and yet the same. lol...sorry if i'm sounding all...mushy.
No, that was my point, too.
I think is CSL's mind, equality wouldn't have entered into it so much as duty: to the classicist, each person in the enterprise had their role to play, to the best of the ability. It did not occur to him to put the girls into the role of warrior because they weren't best suited for it, and their talents could best be used elsewhere. As Aragorn and Eowyn discussed in LOTR, women and children were to be protected by the men, and their role was to keep safe and functioning the homes the men were fighting for -- if the men were lost, then of course the women were forced to fight. It wasn't that they couldn't fight, but that they could not be risked in a fight.
I think is CSL's mind, equality wouldn't have entered into it so much as duty: to the classicist, each person in the enterprise had their role to play, to the best of the ability. It did not occur to him to put the girls into the role of warrior because they weren't best suited for it, and their talents could best be used elsewhere. As Aragorn and Eowyn discussed in LOTR, women and children were to be protected by the men, and their role was to keep safe and functioning the homes the men were fighting for -- if the men were lost, then of course the women were forced to fight. It wasn't that they couldn't fight, but that they could not be risked in a fight.
You are training for the army? Whoa! Are women allowed to serve in combat in Australia? Up until about 15 years ago in the USA, women in the military were not even sent into areas where they would be at risk, let alone into combat.Men are better fighters when it comes to close combat. period... I should know I'm training for the army.
