Why no female dwarves??

[Darej]

That may be the crux of it: I consider false beards part of the "garb" they use to hide themselves among other races because otherwise if they looked that similar then no disguise would be needed. But it really depends on what one sees as "appearance" versus "garb". I see it one way and you another.

a disguise would still be needed if only to strap down breats and put on male styled clothing.

and at least for me...the definition of garb is clothing...wearing apparel...uniforms i.e.

'the clothier not only sold to Men but also had garb for all races'

i cant find any reference to wear garb means wigs..false mustaches/beards..or anything not related to clothing.

[Maihgread]

a disguise would still be needed if only to strap down breats and put on male styled clothing.

and at least for me...the definition of garb is clothing...wearing apparel...uniforms i.e.

'the clothier not only sold to Men but also had garb for all races'

i cant find any reference to wear garb means wigs..false mustaches/beards..or anything not related to clothing.

A false beard would count as "garb" because it is being worn by the individual. That being said I realize you only posted the above in attempt to be cute. I say cute because it is a more polite word than what it actually is.

[auximenes77]

A false beard would count as "garb" because it is being worn by the individual. That being said I realize you only posted the above in attempt to be cute. I say cute because it is a more polite word than what it actually is.

Garb is always associated with clothing. I don't recall ever reading anything to the contrary.

Here's a question for you, why would dwarven females go through the trouble trying to fashion fake beards? Also, if they indeed were using a false beard, wouldn't it be logical to assume that many residents of Middle-Earth would be able to see the fake beard for what it is? Dwarves aren't exactly known for their mastery of trickery and disguises.

[Maihgread]

Garb is always associated with clothing. I don't recall ever reading anything to the contrary.

Here's a question for you, why would dwarven females go through the trouble trying to fashion fake beards? Also, if they indeed were using a false beard, wouldn't it be logical to assume that many residents of Middle-Earth would be able to see the fake beard for what it is? Dwarves aren't exactly known for their mastery of trickery and disguises.

The actual definition of garb:

–noun
1.
a fashion or mode of dress, esp. of a distinctive, uniform kind: in the garb of a monk.
2.
wearing apparel; clothes.
3.
outward appearance or form


So yes, it does include outward appearance or form.

Why would anyone besides a Dwarf be that close to one to see if the beard was fake or not? Why would Tolkien explicitly state the females intentionally changed their outward appearance to appear male then? They did so for safety and in order to pass off as men they had to wear false beards to match the male Dwarves. This is literally repeating what I just said in my other post that this comes down to what one defines as "appearance" and "garb".

[Arasilion]

So when Tolkien said that all Dwarves were born with full beards, I suppose he really meant that the fetus made use of her incubation period to knit false beards. Your theory is contrived and Occam's Razor dictates that it's far simpler that Dwarven woman had beards, as is abundantly obvious by the texts, rather that they glued on fur to their faces.

[Lohi]

And no, Dwarven women do not have beards. In the appendixes to the Return of the King Tolkien clearly states that Dwarven women disguised themselves as men for safety reasons. This is where this myth comes from other races that are no Dwarf women.

There's more to a disguise than a beard.

Amongst dwarves, they can tell male from female, so disguising as a male would mean disguising so that other dwarves didn't know you were female. However men and hobbits wouldn't be able to tell dwarves apart (elves might be able to).

What is so wrong with female dwarves having beards anyway? Female cats, dogs, antelope, anteaters, all have hair on their chins. Give a female human more testosterone than normal (all females have testosterone) then she'll get hair on her chin too. Shaving is always a custom, and different societies have different customs. I would suspect dwarven society to be radically different from human society. Dwarves are not humans.

The real reason this keeps coming up, is because some players want "feminine" dwarves. That is "human feminine". They want to be human females, dressed like human females, acting like human females, maybe even going to far as to be frilly and pink, but while looking like a dwarf. If someone wants to role play, then why not try role playing an actual dwarf, instead of a human badly disguised as as dwarf?

[Lohi]

face it...dwarves are an androgynous looking race

Let's be even more clear. "Race" is inaccurate, and makes it sound like dwarves are just some regional variation on humans. No. Dwarves are a completely different alien species from humans, no common ancestors, no shared mitochondrial DNA. Hobbits are essentially humans though, but dwarves are not. They were created by a different behind using a different template. (of course this is all fantasy, so we don't have things like DNA or such)

"Androgynous" is a strange word here too. This is a description used for humans. We never see "androgynous" used to describe other species. Biologists don't describe lizards as being androgynous, that would be silly. So by describing dwarves as androgynous is an example of anthropomorphizing dwarves.

[Maihgread]

There's more to a disguise than a beard.

Amongst dwarves, they can tell male from female, so disguising as a male would mean disguising so that other dwarves didn't know you were female. However men and hobbits wouldn't be able to tell dwarves apart (elves might be able to).

What is so wrong with female dwarves having beards anyway? Female cats, dogs, antelope, anteaters, all have hair on their chins. Give a female human more testosterone than normal (all females have testosterone) then she'll get hair on her chin too. Shaving is always a custom, and different societies have different customs. I would suspect dwarven society to be radically different from human society. Dwarves are not humans.

The real reason this keeps coming up, is because some players want "feminine" dwarves. That is "human feminine". They want to be human females, dressed like human females, acting like human females, maybe even going to far as to be frilly and pink, but while looking like a dwarf. If someone wants to role play, then why not try role playing an actual dwarf, instead of a human badly disguised as as dwarf?

With apologies please do not presume that you are speaking for me or why I am responding to this thread. I have been an ardent fan of Tolkien for over three decades and enjoy a spirited debate with anyone over the lore. The only reason I am against this "bearded dwarf" nonsense is that it was a complete fabrication engineered in the movie to make a comedic character in Gimli even more comedic by having funny bearded Dwarf women to joke about.

As I said before not one serious Tolkien fan I spoke to prior to those horrid movies coming out believed or even talked about bearded Dwarven women. We've all had the "did the Balrog have wings?" debate, the "who created Uruks, Saruman or Sauron" , the "why could Sauron be defeated with the Ring on at the ending of the Second Age and yet was made to seem indestructible with it by the series" and so forth. This whole "bearded Dwarf women" is a silly movie confusion. I put it in the same category as I do when people who watch the movies blink stupidly and ask "Whose Tom Bombadil? What do you mean Arwen didn't save Frodo? What do you mean the Elves didn't show up at Helm's Deep? What do you mean Faramir didn't kidnap Frodo to Osgiliath? What do you mean Elves can't slide down stairs on a shield shooting arrows faster than you can' blink?" when someone whose read the actual books tells them of these things.

[Macfeast]

As I said before not one serious Tolkien fan I spoke to prior to those horrid movies coming out believed or even talked about bearded Dwarven women.

Are you suggesting we're not serious Tolkien fans? I'm sorry, but:

When you have to insult other people to try and prove a point the only point you make is about yourself.

[Lohi]

As I said before not one serious Tolkien fan I spoke to prior to those horrid movies coming out believed or even talked about bearded Dwarven women.

You need to speak to more of them then. I know some serious Tolkien scholars who would disagree with you, and this topic existed before the movies.

(from just before release of second movie)
http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=57337

[BIGeyedBUG]

That may be the crux of it: I consider false beards part of the "garb" they use to hide themselves among other races because otherwise if they looked that similar then no disguise would be needed.

They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance [comma] and in garb if they must go on a journey [comma] so like to the Dwarf men that in eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart.

All one can logically infer from the aside is that Dwarven women did not dress like their men when they were not traveling. Take out the aside entirely, and the meaning of the rest of the sentence becomes crystal clear.

I see it one way and you another.

Ain't fantasy great? It's probably wiser to leave it at that than to ascribe your disagreement with others to their superficiality or stupidity.

(I'd say something similar to Lohi, if he or she meant to imply that that -all- those who take your position do so because of discomfort with the idea of bearded women. But I don't believe that's what was meant.)

[tessathecat]

The reason most people believe female dwarves have beards is that Tolkien said so ... explicitly. From an earlier post in this same thread:

...

Here is the quote : From "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" in HOME XI:

§5 (...)For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike; nor indeed can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race, be it in feature or in gait or in voice, nor in any wise save this: that they go not to war, and seldom save at direst need issue from their deep bowers and halls. It is said, also, that their womenkind are few, and that save their kings and chieftains few Dwarves ever wed; wherefore their race multiplied slowly and now is dwindling.

...

In _The Peoples of Middle-earth_, Christopher Tolkien says that a
similar statement was present in an earlier draft of Appendix A as
well. As these statements are entirely in agreement with the canonical
evidence cited above, the conclusion that Dwarf women had beards seems
inescapable.

Darkannex's conclusion says it all:

In conclusion, as the only expert on Tolkien is Tolkien, we have to go by what he has written on the subject. While his opinions MAY have changed, he never wrote so...and therefore saying his mind was altered to this thinking is pure conjecture. By his words we see that 1. There are no unbearded males (as this was a mark of shame) 2. Female Dwarves are 'indistinguishable' from males by non-dwarves (this meaning more than a change of clothing, as it states '...in FEATURE, gait, or voice') Therefore by this alone, female Dwarves are bearded. But add to that a direct quote that 3. Female as well as male have beards (as stated in the later quenta Silmarillion.)

[auximenes77]

The only reason I am against this "bearded dwarf" nonsense is that it was a complete fabrication engineered in the movie to make a comedic character in Gimli even more comedic by having funny bearded Dwarf women to joke about.

Maybe I missed it, but what do the movies have to do with the discussion at hand?

As I said before not one serious Tolkien fan I spoke to prior to those horrid movies coming out believed or even talked about bearded Dwarven women.

You really have never read anything or spoken to someone that said anything about bearded dwarven females until the movies? I'm beginning to suspect that you're trolling.

[Maihgread]

Maybe I missed it, but what do the movies have to do with the discussion at hand?


You really have never read anything or spoken to someone that said anything about bearded dwarven females until the movies? I'm beginning to suspect that you're trolling.

Ah the classic last internet gamble: accuse the person in disagreement of trolling. Of course this is after someone else started throwing insults. The next step is, let me see, throwing up lol pics or something of that nature?

[Maihgread]

Are you suggesting we're not serious Tolkien fans? I'm sorry, but:

Talk about reading into something to be insulted. No, I did not suggest anything of the sort. I was bringing up the point that in my many years of being a rabid Tolkien fan that none of the other fans I've talked to or debated about various things (such as I listed before) have even brought this up for discussion. The surprise in watching the movies and seeing so many things completely wrong is what I was precisely talking about in relation to this debate over bearded female Dwarves. There was no insult implied.

[Maihgread]

The reason most people believe female dwarves have beards is that Tolkien said so ... explicitly. From an earlier post in this same thread:




Darkannex's conclusion says it all:

Yes, it does: I don't consider HOME as anything other than a stark money grab from Tolkien's estates to "discover" more documents and random scribbles from Tolkien and trying to make more of it than it was. HOME does not count as lore in my books (no pun intended).

[Macfeast]

Talk about reading into something to be insulted. No, I did not suggest anything of the sort. I was bringing up the point that in my many years of being a rabid Tolkien fan that none of the other fans I've talked to or debated about various things (such as I listed before) have even brought this up for discussion. The surprise in watching the movies and seeing so many things completely wrong is what I was precisely talking about in relation to this debate over bearded female Dwarves. There was no insult implied.

It certainly came across as one, but if that wasn't the intention, my apologies.

[tuor66]

Yes, it does: I don't consider HOME as anything other than a stark money grab from Tolkien's estates to "discover" more documents and random scribbles from Tolkien and trying to make more of it than it was. HOME does not count as lore in my books (no pun intended).

No it doesn't count as lore, in a strict sense, but it offers some tantalizing glimpses into obscure areas or of ideas that might have been fleshed out if he had had the time. Another thing to keep in mind when reading HOME is when something was written, pre or post Hobbit or LOTR. Some of the latter writings in the 60's, early 70's are very interesting. I tend to accept unpublished writings when they do not contradict what's in "The Hobbit" or LOTR. If there's multiple choices, let the debate begin

What about the Silmarillion ? It was never really finished and in the HOME series C.T. points out things he changed to make it mesh together a little better. There are places where he admits making a mistake or regretting a decision made at the time. Is it truly lore or editorial tweaking based on incomplete and sometimes conflicting narratives ?

I might also add that Tolkien changed many minor things in both books when latter editions were published so your definition of lore might depend on if you have the 1st or 2nd edition.

[Maihgread]

No it doesn't count as lore, in a strict sense, but it offers some tantalizing glimpses into obscure areas or of ideas that might have been fleshed out if he had had the time. Another thing to keep in mind when reading HOME is when something was written, pre or post Hobbit or LOTR. Some of the latter writings in the 60's, early 70's are very interesting. I tend to accept unpublished writings when they do not contradict what's in "The Hobbit" or LOTR. If there's multiple choices, let the debate begin

What about the Silmarillion ? It was never really finished and in the HOME series C.T. points out things he changed to make it mesh together a little better. There are places where he admits making a mistake or regretting a decision made at the time. Is it truly lore or editorial tweaking based on incomplete and sometimes conflicting narratives ?

I might also add that Tolkien changed many minor things in both books when latter editions were published so your definition of lore might depend on if you have the 1st or 2nd edition.

I'm not against printing random things Tolkien wrote but there has to be some sort of standard to apply to what "counts" and what does not in terms of lore and what Tolkien "really" meant. I've had this debate over what "counts" many times over the years.

To be perfectly honest and I realize this may anger some who already have taken the time to insult me as a poster and not what I post I find it incredibly difficult to believe that these "lost findings" are exactly that. Especially since they keep periodically reappearing in print form from Christopher Tolkien. I understand that Prof. Tolkien wrote off and on about his fantasy world for almost his adult life leading right up to death but how many "lost writings" could possibly be found at this point?

I agree with you that outside of Hobbit and LotR we as readers/fans must make some allowance for editorial oversights or mistakes since it is admitted from the start that some of it had to be literally rewritten by others just to make it work as a piece of readable fiction. My problem is when we veer too far and consider anything from any time period it was written in as "gospel truth". Tolkien himself crossed out and rewrote many, many elements in his stories. Why should we consider any small scrap he wrote at any random time as standing equal alongside his actual finished works?

[auximenes77]

Ah the classic last internet gamble: accuse the person in disagreement of trolling. Of course this is after someone else started throwing insults. The next step is, let me see, throwing up lol pics or something of that nature?

I'm as free as you on this forum to share my opinion. I find it hard to believe that in all or your years as a Tolkien fan you've not encountered any reference to dwarven females having beards. Isn't it telling that not only do no others on this forum agree with you, but there have been multiple posts quoting the text right out of the books to disprove your assertions? Obviously just because an overwhelming majority share one opinion doesn't necessarily prove the validity of that opinion, but it does lend weight.

[RedDwarf]

Why aren't there any male elves.

Or dwarvish elfish offspring. I'm sure they hook up every now and then.

[Maihgread]

I'm as free as you on this forum to share my opinion. I find it hard to believe that in all or your years as a Tolkien fan you've not encountered any reference to dwarven females having beards. Isn't it telling that not only do no others on this forum agree with you, but there have been multiple posts quoting the text right out of the books to disprove your assertions? Obviously just because an overwhelming majority share one opinion doesn't necessarily prove the validity of that opinion, but it does lend weight.

Actually the only text quoting from a source I consider valid has proven my point and at least two people agree with me that this is a matter of opinion left up to how you interpret "appearance" and "garb". If you look at the other topics on this board I've expressed an opinion on several Tolkien related topics besides this one. But if it helps you to keep people who disagree with you in the "troll" category then feel free to keep doing so.

[BIGeyedBUG]

To be perfectly honest and I realize this may anger some who already have taken the time to insult me as a poster and not what I post I find it incredibly difficult to believe that these "lost findings" are exactly that. Especially since they keep periodically reappearing in print form from Christopher Tolkien. I understand that Prof. Tolkien wrote off and on about his fantasy world for almost his adult life leading right up to death but how many "lost writings" could possibly be found at this point?

There doesn't seem to be much that was actually "lost", per se. Tolkien's manuscripts and notes were still not completely catalogued at the time Christopher Tolkien began working on HOME, let alone thoroughly deciphered, analyzed, and compared in toto for publication. As for the quantity of material, there are over 10,000 pages of it at Marquette University alone--leaving aside the collections at Oxford and what is still in the possession of the Tolkien Estate. I just have to laugh when people suggest Christopher Tolkien undertook this vast, painstaking labor mainly to turn a quick buck.

I agree with you that outside of Hobbit and LotR we as readers/fans must make some allowance for editorial oversights or mistakes since it is admitted from the start that some of it had to be literally rewritten by others just to make it work as a piece of readable fiction. My problem is when we veer too far and consider anything from any time period it was written in as "gospel truth". Tolkien himself crossed out and rewrote many, many elements in his stories. Why should we consider any small scrap he wrote at any random time as standing equal alongside his actual finished works?

Sure, it's a tangled problem at times, where the material contradicts itself. But where it is uncontradicted or ambiguous, I think we can venture that Tolkien's notes are better evidence than a reader's "Because I said so".

[darkoutcast]

The problem is the main conclusive argument for beards is in HOME. Everything else is obscure. So, if you decide you don't want to include HOME as a source (which is perfectly valid,) there is no real debate. No debate that can be proved at any rate. We can bandy about what they mean or don't mean by garb and looks/sounds like, but there isn't any proof either way because we aren't talking about history. We're talking about fiction. Unless somebody has a working Quija board to get in touch with Tolkien, this one's out of decision making reach.

[auximenes77]

But if it helps you to keep people who disagree with you in the "troll" category then feel free to keep doing so.

Someone disagreeing with me does not equal me calling them a troll. On the other hand, someone who seems to be ignoring a wealth of contrary opinions to theirs does usually trigger a 'they might just be trolling' response.

I think we're done with this discussion, eh?