(Btw: Of course the "nursing & dressing" would have come after TH - but it could still indicate a relationship that was not just built between TH and LotR).

...Also that later she is the one nursing and dressing him in White...

Arannir wrote: ...Also that later she is the one nursing and dressing him in White...

Where in the texts is this? Just curious to give it a read.

It’s so ingrained into our society that female characters are extra or niche, and that asking for them is asking too much, that the very act of questioning the lack of them feels overdemanding. A lack of imagination. A refusal to read books without characters who aren’t “like me.” Somehow, it feels wrong of me to abandon a book merely because it lacks female characters. After all, I read books by female authors and about female characters all the time. Why shouldn’t I pick up a book about male characters for a change?

Except, of course, even books that are all about female characters feature male characters too. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a book whose characters are 100% women, or even 100% women and their love interests. It simply doesn’t happen, because of course men exist. Of course they have impact on events and play significant roles in other people’s lives. Of course you couldn’t write a book, even a book set in an entirely different world, without them. But when it’s the reverse? Well, then you can’t expect women to be shoehorned in everywhere. Why would they even be around? It’s a fantasy world. It’s about criminals. You’re being unreasonable expecting women to be there. You’re asking too much.

It’s nonsense, but it’s incredibly pervasive, to the point that a part of me insists that if I put down a book because of a lack of female characters, even if I know I therefore won’t enjoy it, that’ll mean I’m not a “serious reader” or a “serious writer” or simply don’t understand books. And that’s not a nice feeling to have.

As they went through their choices, the boy picked up a book whose cover showed an illustration of a woman in a hoop skirt. He quickly tossed it aside. My daughter suggested that it might be good, and asked if he'd already read it, because she would like to. He said no, it was a girl book and he wouldn't read it. Her response was pretty cut and dry: "That's a sexist thing to say," she explained. He was a friend of hers and an intelligent kid. He paused long enough for her to realize he wasn't sure what she meant.

"Do you know how many books with boys in them I read?" she said. "You should read girl books, too. Not reading them just because they're about girls is sexist."

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 brought about by the neri. There are, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a ner can think or do, or others with which only a nis is concerned.

On the matter of Galadriel being presented in the films as more important than Saruman she definitely is presented that way, I dont see how it can be in doubt.

At the WC we are introduced to her first and for longer than Saruman, during the meeting Saruman has nothing to say of import, just sort of waffles rubbish, and is soon drowned out by Galadriel's telepathy anyway, giving her literal important right over the top of him.
How the scene is filmed too, with Galadriel always standing and visually dominating over the others- they all add up to her being presented as more important than Saruman.

Sexism isn't the sole domain of men, and even claims of sexism are sometimes used as sexist leverage in efforts achieve righteous dominion. As Gandalf might say, "He would even use his grief as a cloak."

...And I definitely would have loved to see more Galadriel. If they had put more Galadriel and less Tauriel I wouldn't have a problem with it.