Just my 2 cents on a surface-level reading of the character because it’s also been a while since I’ve watched it.
Aragorn is strong and capable, with a generally masculine image about him. He’s handsome, good with a sword, rides horses, and commands respect by his presence.
But he is not prideful or boastful, he doesn’t seek glory, and he’s respectful to the women in his life.
At least the way the movies present it, his relationship with Arwen is one in which both partners are equal participants. Aragorn is not controlling, and Arwen isn’t some damsel who lacks agency without her man there to tell her what to do. And when Eowyn shows affection towards him, he is quick to respectfully decline her advances without leading her on, thereby preserving a positive and supportive relationship between them.
That might be the sort of thing people are referring to, as far as his characterization. There might be more examples, but that’s what I remember.
Rightfully a king but decides to forgo all the trappings of royalty to wander the world unrecognized in shabby clothes in search of baddies to protect the innocent. Doesn’t want the ring for himself, doesn’t even want to wield the sword of Isildor until it’s basically thrust upon him. His entire priorities are centered on saving the world and doing what he must in order to achieve that end.
The only problem is that it kind of starts from the fundamental premise that he’s the rightful king of Gondor to begin with. That kind of communicates that you need royal blood in order to exemplify positive, healthy masculinity.
After all, how could someone choose to forgo a life of privilege and authority if they never had that option to begin with? The average person needs to work for a living; how’s a commoner supposed to dedicate his life to a cause while asking nothing in return?
Even if he manages to somehow provide for his own meals and lodging while being perfectly selfless and altruistic, nobody will listen to him about the important things; and the more strongly he insists on doing what’s right the more likely people will dismiss him as egotistical.
The only reason Boromir deferred to Aragorn in Rivendell was because Legolas correctly identified him. If he wasn’t the king of Gondor or hadn’t been raised by elves, then he wouldn’t have had the luxury of humility or the authority needed to do what needed to be done.
I love that Aaragorn is kind of unanimously agreed on as one of the best examples of positive masculinity.
Me too and yet it’s been too ling since last rewatch - can anybody explain why?
Just my 2 cents on a surface-level reading of the character because it’s also been a while since I’ve watched it.
Aragorn is strong and capable, with a generally masculine image about him. He’s handsome, good with a sword, rides horses, and commands respect by his presence.
But he is not prideful or boastful, he doesn’t seek glory, and he’s respectful to the women in his life.
At least the way the movies present it, his relationship with Arwen is one in which both partners are equal participants. Aragorn is not controlling, and Arwen isn’t some damsel who lacks agency without her man there to tell her what to do. And when Eowyn shows affection towards him, he is quick to respectfully decline her advances without leading her on, thereby preserving a positive and supportive relationship between them.
That might be the sort of thing people are referring to, as far as his characterization. There might be more examples, but that’s what I remember.
He also freely shows love to the rest of the fellowship and expresses emotion without shame.
Rightfully a king but decides to forgo all the trappings of royalty to wander the world unrecognized in shabby clothes in search of baddies to protect the innocent. Doesn’t want the ring for himself, doesn’t even want to wield the sword of Isildor until it’s basically thrust upon him. His entire priorities are centered on saving the world and doing what he must in order to achieve that end.
The only problem is that it kind of starts from the fundamental premise that he’s the rightful king of Gondor to begin with. That kind of communicates that you need royal blood in order to exemplify positive, healthy masculinity.
After all, how could someone choose to forgo a life of privilege and authority if they never had that option to begin with? The average person needs to work for a living; how’s a commoner supposed to dedicate his life to a cause while asking nothing in return?
Even if he manages to somehow provide for his own meals and lodging while being perfectly selfless and altruistic, nobody will listen to him about the important things; and the more strongly he insists on doing what’s right the more likely people will dismiss him as egotistical.
The only reason Boromir deferred to Aragorn in Rivendell was because Legolas correctly identified him. If he wasn’t the king of Gondor or hadn’t been raised by elves, then he wouldn’t have had the luxury of humility or the authority needed to do what needed to be done.