But has anyone, ever, inquired whether Commander Marlow's parenting skills and his job are perhaps one reason why the Marlow children are as they are?
Well, not in this community - that doesn't mean it hasn't ever happened. After all, no one had commented on Mrs. Marlow's parenting before yesterday! And I'd say all children are a result, to some extent, of the nurturing of both parents (if they have input from both parents, that is).
I think that Commander Marlow's parenting certainly had some impact on the children, and is as responsible for how they turned out, but I was questioning Mrs. Marlow's actions because in the case I raised, they were her actions, not his. I didn't get the implication he was involved, though of course she may have talked it over with him. I would have questioned Commander Marlow, if he had done as ajhalluk hypothesised, or if he had bought a horse for Ginty and not for the others. But he didn't, she did. So it isn't possible to examine his behaviour in this case. Perhaps we should take it to ajhalluk's parenting thread...
It is a cultural given to demand that a woman shall prioritise her children's needs above her own... and it is a cultural given to question a mother who has a job that means her primary committment can't be to childcare. Fathers aren't subject to such questions.
Yes, it is. And it's wrong. But it could be argued that what's wrong with it, primarily, is that it is a woman only, not both woman and man, who are expected to prioritise children's needs. I think both parents should prioritise the children's needs (though not necessarily their wants).
Also, I don't think anyone actually explicitly stated "it's selfish of her to buy a horse for herself instead of party clothes for the children" - it was more a lot of nebulus comments and questions along the lines of "was it fair to buy one child a horse while the others are wearing hand-me-downs?" and "was it sensible she should have spent all the money on this one thing?" and "should she have saved the money for a rainy day?" which got interpreted as saying "New party clothes for all is more important than Mrs. Marlow!" and "Hand-me-downs are always bad and wrong and cruel to the children!"
no subject
Well, not in this community - that doesn't mean it hasn't ever happened. After all, no one had commented on Mrs. Marlow's parenting before yesterday! And I'd say all children are a result, to some extent, of the nurturing of both parents (if they have input from both parents, that is).
I think that Commander Marlow's parenting certainly had some impact on the children, and is as responsible for how they turned out, but I was questioning Mrs. Marlow's actions because in the case I raised, they were her actions, not his. I didn't get the implication he was involved, though of course she may have talked it over with him. I would have questioned Commander Marlow, if he had done as
It is a cultural given to demand that a woman shall prioritise her children's needs above her own... and it is a cultural given to question a mother who has a job that means her primary committment can't be to childcare. Fathers aren't subject to such questions.
Yes, it is. And it's wrong. But it could be argued that what's wrong with it, primarily, is that it is a woman only, not both woman and man, who are expected to prioritise children's needs. I think both parents should prioritise the children's needs (though not necessarily their wants).
Also, I don't think anyone actually explicitly stated "it's selfish of her to buy a horse for herself instead of party clothes for the children" - it was more a lot of nebulus comments and questions along the lines of "was it fair to buy one child a horse while the others are wearing hand-me-downs?" and "was it sensible she should have spent all the money on this one thing?" and "should she have saved the money for a rainy day?" which got interpreted as saying "New party clothes for all is more important than Mrs. Marlow!" and "Hand-me-downs are always bad and wrong and cruel to the children!"