It's alright not to relate to a protagonist who, it must be said, wasn't written for you. In this piece you lament Tolkien's perceived cultural narrowness with respect to women, and that's maybe a fair cop, but you elide other differences in culture that should, in fact, mitigate your acceptance of the trilogy.

Frodo's (and Sam's) very ordinariness--and Frodo's ultimate failure at the moment of crisis-- is, exactly, the point for a certain type of English speaking male in the middle of the twentieth century. Merry and Pippins growth (literal and figurative) through the story is also pertinent to such men. If these characters could be diluted to 'relate' to anyone and everyone who might read the books, they wouldn't be of much use to the story.

I don't think that LOTR lacks good female characters but I do think that you may be correct that the females in the story maybe derive from, or are informed by, a cultural trap.

From Lobelia Sackville-Baggins and Rosie Cotton to Goldberry, Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel --not to mention Smeagols grandmother and Shelob would be elision also-- strong and interesting female characters are present, but--again you are correct-- seemingly held at arms length. This, however, is entirely in keeping with the traditions of Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic mythology in which Tolkien was steeped (he was a professor of medieval literature and languages): In addition to living in a decided patriarchy, Tolkien wrote with a certain Catholic reverence for women (this can be seen most potently through the eyes of Gimli and his worshipful crush on Galadriel) that may have been born of the mythologies he studied, translated and mused upon, more or less constantly, and which informed The Lord Of The Rings.