You beat me to it.
This is another one of those tricky runes where the poems don't all agree, and I wanted to tackle this one next.
What most people agree on, though not all people, is that this is not generally a pleasant rune to see; it typically denotes some kind of brush with overwhelming force or resistance. Unlike Hagalaz, which I think is seen to have a silver lining, no such lining exists with Thurisaz.
It's interesting that you find a feminine connection, WN, because the other poems, though different in their primary interpretation, do make specific mention of women; but not in a pleasant manner:
Norwegian
Giant causes anguish to women;
misfortune makes few men cheerful.
Icelandic
Giant
torture of women
and cliff-dweller
and husband of a giantess (Vardhrun). The other poems refer to not "Thorn", but "Thurs", meaning giant. The Jotuns, or race of giants, were the big bads of Nordic mythology. Why giants would pick on woman specifically though.. I have no idea. The Aesir God Thor (AKA Thunor, Thonar, or Þonar,) often did battle with the giants, and protected mankind. To do so, he wielded his magic hammer Mjöllnir as his weapon.
With all this in mind, people see all kinds of things in Thurisaz. Here's my take.
For some, it is indeed a thorn. Makes sense, it sure looks like one, too. I've always leaned more towards the OERP when if differs from the other two.
For others, they say it represents Mjollnir, Thor's hammer, the weapon used to battle the giants. From a profile view, it looks a bit like that. This makes sense to me as well. There have been numerous pendants dug up with an astonishing likeness, such as this one:
Drawing of a silver Thor's hammer amulet found in Fitjar, Hordaland, NorwayFor some who see it this way, Thurisaz has a positive connotation, as they see the rune as a protector or wielder of great power. Personally, however, I have issues with this; the rune in this context literally means "giant", not giant-
killer ("Thor"); if it really meant "Thor", it would've simply been called that, I think, and the poems would've said so as well.
Thurs and Thor may sound similar enough to us, as speakers of Modern English, that we might imagine they have a common root, and mean the same thing, but they are in fact not cognate, according to the linguistic references I've read. (There is a counterpoint to this however*)
Another point that can't be ignored is that other Gods, such as Tyr and Ing, do in fact have runes named directly after them (Tiwaz and Ingwaz) and many assume Ansuz refers to Odin as well. So if the rune really meant Thunor or Thor, why is it not simply called that? Also, reading the NRP and the IRP, it clearly is referring to the nasty business of giants, pain, and misfortune, not singing the praises of a god-hero. Maybe they just decided that the easiest shape to represent giants was the symbol of the one who defeated them.
If I'm not mistaken, some swords and helmets uncovered in archeological digs have shown the rune engraved in them, along with the more common Tiwaz, which was used as a protective amulet or talisman of sorts. If the rune was pure misfortune, why would they do that? And yet, none of the poems have anything very positive to say about it. Perhaps the wielder of the sword or whatever felt the rune would give them the strength of a giant, or the resistance of a wall of thorns.
Another possibility is that the rune, and the amulet representing Thor (or Mjollnir), were simply considered two different things, despite the relatively identical shape.
Back to your original thought, another interesting theory I read is that Thurisaz may be a phallic representation. This is especially interesting considering that it's shape is complementary to Berkana, a feminine rune. In this case, I think one would have to take the meaning of "giant" with a large grain of salt and a sense of humor! It may be convenient that the shapes are complementary, but at this point, pending more evidence, I don't see that as anything more than coincidence.
* I did a little more digging: Thors' name derives from Þórr, Thunor, and Thonar; or more accurately, Þonar (the letter "Þ" called "eth" is a defunct letter from the old Anglo-Saxon alphabet, and his name was later anglicized to THunor). Þonar ultimately derives from Old German Þunraz, which means "Thunder". ("Thunor" sounds like our word thunder, not much has changed!) The "n" seems to be initially important here, but was dropped eventually anyway. Despite having the "n" or not, looking directly at the original old Norse, and Icelandic poems, Thunor or Thor and it's variants are not found, instead, they say quite directly, "Þurs", with a
u and an
s.
But here's where it gets sticky. To add to any already existing confusion, we get our modern day of the week "Thursday" from "Thunor's daeg", or "Thor's day".. and yet today we spell it "Thurs", just like the rune. I am dying to know how, why, and when this happened. I think it might answer a lot of questions. So is it really "Giant's Day", and not Thor's day?? Or is the literary source I read that claims Thurs and Thunor are not cognate wrong? I have yet to find an academic source that explains this.
Thurisaz is another rune, therefore, that I can't quite get my head around. There's so much contradictory evidence.
