Are women just bored of the rings?

[Storm Raven]

But, why did her stroke do something different that any other stroke from any other blade through the Ages?

Because she was fated to destroy the Witch-King, as she was not a man.

You misunderstand the prophecy. The prophecy wasn't an indication of invulnerability (which the Witch-King misunderstood it to be), it was a prediction, a vision of future events. Not "he cannot be destroyed . . ." but rather "he will not be destroyed . . . " It is similar to a Celtic gesa in this regard.

Mentioned elsewhere, but I kind of always figured the witch King would have reformed eventually, had the One Ring not been destroyed.

Had Eowyn not been involved, probably. But as Eowyn was involved, he didn't. Because he was destroyed in the manner fate had chosen.

She gets full XP for the fell beast, sure. She didn't really do much against the Witch King though. She stabbed and collapsed. Merry should still get the majority of the XP since it was his slice that did it.

Just standing up to the Witch-King is a powerful action in and of itself, given that most brave warriors throw down their weapons and cower helplessly or run in terror when confronted by his power.

Her cut did the deed. His attack merely wounded and distracted the wraith (and he stabbed and collapsed as well, for the same reasons Eowyn collapsed). If mMerry's stroke had killed the Witch-King, then Eowyn would not have collapsed after her stroke, because she was affected by the negative conseqeunces of striking the Witch-King with a weapon. Had Merry's stroke "killed" the Witch-King, she would not have suffered that consequence.

Well, he saw that his death was "far off", but he still could have done many things to the Witch King. The fact that he saw that his end wasn't immediate doesn't mean he couldn't have done something to him.

He, however, did not do any of these things. He held back, knowing anything he would have done would have been ineffective. In the context of Glorfindel's prophecy, based upon his actions, and the nature of the resolution in Tolkien's text, "man" means male.

 

[Zander]

If mMerry's stroke had killed the Witch-King, then Eowyn would not have collapsed after her stroke, because she was affected by the negative conseqeunces of striking the Witch-King with a weapon. Had Merry's stroke "killed" the Witch-King, she would not have suffered that consequence.

That's a "what if" statement.

You keep working on a "what if" basis.... Trying to figure out what would have happened... is silly, since the only person who can tell us that has been dead for many years.

If I were unkind, I would say something about digging one's own grave. As it is, I will simply ask why you are entitled to make "what if" arguments and I am not?

He, however, did not do any of these things. He held back, knowing anything he would have done would have been ineffective. In the context of Glorfindel's prophecy, based upon his actions, and the nature of the resolution in Tolkien's text, "man" means male.

Not true.

...the words of Glorfindel long before to King Earnur were fulfilled, that the Witch-king would not fall by the hand of man. For it is said in the songs of the Mark that in this deed Eowyn had the aid of Theoden's esquire, and that he also was not a Man but a Halfling [sc. Merry] out of a far country...

(Tolkien, LotR, Appendix A, my emphasis).
Tolkien wasn't making a PC point at all; he was playing with words - something he does on at least one other occasion.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Because she was fated to destroy the Witch-King, as she was not a man.

There's no proof of that, and it's not really a sure thing. We can't say if the Witch King was destroyed at that time, or he would have reformed a week later. Her sword being effective because it was her sword doesn't make sense to me. Her sword doing more because the Witch King was particularily vulnerable at that juncture in time, maybe.

You misunderstand the prophecy. The prophecy wasn't an indication of invulnerability (which the Witch-King misunderstood it to be), it was a prediction, a vision of future events. Not "he cannot be destroyed . . ." but rather "he will not be destroyed . . . " It is similar to a Celtic gesa in this regard.

yeah, I understand he was speaking of the future fall.

Had Eowyn not been involved, probably. But as Eowyn was involved, he didn't. Because he was destroyed in the manner fate had chosen.

The thing is, besides taking the discussion too seriously, you've decided that the prediction meant Eowyn and that is all you can see. In a more general sense, the Witch King was felled by the underdogs. In ME, hobbits and women didn't fight, so that's what brought the great enemy low.

Just standing up to the Witch-King is a powerful action in and of itself, given that most brave warriors throw down their weapons and cower helplessly or run in terror when confronted by his power.

Her cut did the deed. His attack merely wounded and distracted the wraith (and he stabbed and collapsed as well, for the same reasons Eowyn collapsed). If mMerry's stroke had killed the Witch-King, then Eowyn would not have collapsed after her stroke, because she was affected by the negative conseqeunces of striking the Witch-King with a weapon. Had Merry's stroke "killed" the Witch-King, she would not have suffered that consequence.

She finished the corporealness of him. Merry is the Cause of His Fall. The prediction is not absolute, and is open to different interpretations.

He, however, did not do any of these things. He held back, knowing anything he would have done would have been ineffective. In the context of Glorfindel's prophecy, based upon his actions, and the nature of the resolution in Tolkien's text, "man" means male.

He saw that the Witch King's "death" was way off, so he didn't try to kill him. Nothing says he couldn't have imprisoned him or hindered him in other ways. That's all I meant. The prediction wasn't an absolute "no one shall hinder his plans" because plenty of people do, indirectly at a minimum, probably more directly at times as well.

 

[Teflon Billy]

You've posted another example that doesn't affect what I'm talking about

What would be a response that would affect what your talking about just out of curiosity?

Good question.

The answer is for someone to read a post of mine that says "generally speaking; women are like this..." and not react as if I said "Generally speaking; women are like this because..."

Look at Barsoomcore's post, I'll quote it here...

But not evidence of a, let us say, physically-based tendency. It may be evidence that men are socially directed towards such events and women are socially directed away. Certainly history gives us many examples of women who were raised "as men" and who went on to value and enjoy the sorts of things associated with men -- which offers vague, "not-really" evidence that it's all social.

See, he goes on and on for an entire paragraph--ostensibly responding to a post of mine--without touching on any point I made. But he at least finishes up with...

Which I understand is rather tangential to your point. Whether it's social or genetic, if it exists it ought to be addressed.

...which, to my mind, at least shows that he knows--and admits--that he didn't address anything I had said. He got to ruminate on the specialness and uniqueness of each human being. It's nice. It makes you look good to self-styled Iconoclasts.

However, to do it by way of quoting my posts first and pretending you are countering something I've said is cheap and ennobling rhetoric.

Let's take a look at your post, the one I said was irrelevant...

Teflon Billy is partially right...most stereotypes do have some basis in fact. However, I think in the case of gender stuff, it's less about gender and more about societal gender roles and conditioning. Yes many traits are to be found in most men, and many different ones in most women, but I think a lot of that is cultural more than something physically or pyschologically inherent in the genders.

You chose to list a bunch of points about social conditioning vs. genetic predisposition to which I replied that the causes were not relevant to my post.

The kind of response I would consider to be relevant would be one that said something like "You are totally, 100% right Billy "

Seriously, the kind of response I would consider to be relevant is one that addressed what I said, as opposed to one that uses my post as a jumping off point for refutation of points I didn't make.

 

[Merlion]

Well...I dont see how anyone can address what you said aside from agreeing to it as far as it goes, as I and others have done. What else is their to say about what you said? Either refute or agree or discuss reasons(which for some odd reason you dont care about)...what other responses would you have?
And of course the fact that my post was "irrelevent" to your post is irrelevent because I wasnt really responding to your post...I was responding to the thread. I just mentioned that what you said was right, as far as it goes.

 

[barsoomcore]

See, he goes on and on for an entire paragraph--ostensibly responding to a post of mine--without touching on any point I made.

"Goes on and on" indeed! As if I wasn't the very soul of brevity. I couldn't possibly say too much on that subject.

He got to ruminate on the specialness and uniqueness of each human being. It's nice. It makes you look good to self-styled Iconoclasts.

I've lost track. Which of us is the Iconoclast?

You are totally, 100% right Billy.

But what about the point I did make -- that behaviour prediction can't be very accurate or marketing flacks would be better at their jobs? Or did my mention of Russ Meyer goodness distract you?

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

But what about the point I did make -- that behaviour prediction can't be very accurate or marketing flacks would be better at their jobs? Or did my mention of Russ Meyer goodness distract you?

No offense, but that wasn't much of a point. You point out all the movies that flop and say, "That's because market research is crap." Well, what about all the successful movies? Were they successful in spite of the marketing flacks, or because of them? Might it be some point in between?

To use LotR as a case-in-point, I'm sure some demographics goon at New Line, when the movies were first floated, said "It won't play to women. There's only one strong female character in the book, and she doesn't even show up until midway through Act II, and doesn't get to do anything 'strong' until midway through Act III." (I'm speaking of Eowyn, obviously) Now I'm not saying the demographers were responsible for beefing up Arwen's character, but tell me they didn't give that particular change their seal of approval. Tell me building up Arwen's character, casting her as one of the few "names" that average moviegoers would recognize, and proceeding to present her as a centerpiece at every interview and press junket for the film didn't maybe sell a few more tickets.

Marketing isn't an exact science, but it's not all hokum. Hollywood is best described as "cruelly meritocratic". If it didn't succeed (in dollars made) more often than it failed, those people would be out of work.

 

[barsoomcore]

Marketing isn't an exact science, but it's not all hokum. Hollywood is best described as "cruelly meritocratic". If it didn't succeed (in dollars made) more often than it failed, those people would be out of work.

Keep in mind that these people DO go out of work quite regularly -- entire corporations have been known to simply collapse -- such as Orion, Cannon, and MGM all did at one point or another. Big companies, employing hundreds if not thousands of people.

Brought down because somebody thought some film or other was a good idea.

Cutthroat Island probably looked like a good idea to the marketing flacks.

I agree that Hollywood is meritocratic -- for the most part, crappy films get smacked. But it's also famous for providing talentless nobodies with healthy livings -- and not all of those are the actors.

If demographic-based marketing worked (based on gender or any other quality) with significant accuracy, studios would only create films that the marketing showed would be successful. Indeed, studios DO only make films that their marketing says will be successful. And they keep on losing money, kept afloat only by the occasional blockbuster that supports all the other losers. The film industry is one of the most volatile industries anywhere -- because marketing is so crucial to what they do, and their money gets made (or lost) in such brief spans of time.

Let's note that the marketing departments of no other studio in Hollywood was able to foresee the immense success of LotR -- not one. That property's been kicking around for ages, and every studio has passed it up -- even once PJ got involved he was still struggling to find a studio to finance it. Yeah, those marketing flacks got it ALL figured out, don't they?



Clearly market prediction in the film industry is not very successful. And that's the gist of my point -- that Billy's contention that gender-based behaviour prediction works more often than it fails may not be entirely realistic -- or at least that the film industry offers some reason to believe it isn't perfectly straightforward.

Now, as I've said, I broadly agree with TB's remarks. I think you CAN predict behaviour of large groups with some success, and you can predict that sort of behaviour based on gender, sure. And obviously certain sorts of entertainment appeal more to one gender than the other. Knowing that boys go to more action movies than girls do isn't much help when it comes to actually creating an action movie that boys will want to go see.

Really, Billy said, "How come nobody's responding to my post?" and I felt sorry for him so came up with something to say.

I'll admit it's not much. But I'm just that sort of guy.

And for the record, Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! totally rocks.

 

[Spatula]

The entertainment industry is notoriously bad at predicting audience reaction. Few other industries are as consistently volatile. If predicting group behaviour was particularly successful, every film would be a hit. The fact is that nobody has come up with a system that predicts market success with any accuracy at all. The industry is forever getting blindsided by hits that come out of nowhere, and forever getting burned by trying to repeat previous successes. Behaviour prediction is overrated -- mainly by the very marketing flacks who depend on its putated accuracy for their livelihoods.

(a) Marketing isn't everything, it's only part of a film's success. Quality is still a factor.
(b) Marketers aren't perfect. Films (quality ones or otherwise) can be poorly marketed.

 

[barsoomcore]

(a) Marketing isn't everything, it's only part of a film's success. Quality is still a factor.
(b) Marketers aren't perfect. Films (quality ones or otherwise) can be poorly marketed.

When I talk about marketing -- I'm talking about the ability to predict behaviour of groups based on shared qualities. Gender, class, race, whatever. We are NOT very good at that, despite many years now of research. What we can do with some accuracy is predict what sort of people will compose the majority of people who like a particular entertainment. We remain very, very poor at predicting what sort of entertainment people will like, which suggests to me that we are not very good at predicting group behaviour except in the most obvious cases -- most football fans are men, most cosmetics purchasers are women.