But arguing from that to "Mrs Marlow's a bad mother" is something else again.
Ah, but I never actually said she was a bad mother. I said I saw it as a mistake she'd made, and later, that I didn't think she was a particularly good mother. From that, you've inferred I think she's a bad mother.
ou seem to have come round to the idea that Mrs Marlow spent it sensibly when she bought a horse for herself, rather than being a bad selfish mother - which was the idea that I truly objected to: the idea that a woman is a "bad mother" if she ever spends anything on herself that she doesn't absolutely need when her children are going without things that they want but don't need - which was your starting position - is really rather anti-woman and anti-mother, and generally objectionable.
I think you're reading entirely too much into my question as to whether it were reasonable for her to spend so much on herself or on only one of the children, while leaving one child without. I think I've made it clear what my position is - that it isn't that she spent the money on herself, but that she spent it on herself and at the same time included one out of her eight children in that, while excluding the rest. I haven't "accepted" anything - I've clarified my position while admitting I didn't put it very clearly to start with. I could have just edited my original post. Even at the beginning of this debate, I was saying I could see both sides of the argument, which is more than you did. I also didn't bring the clothes into it, someone else did, and I have said I don't really mind the hand-me-down aspect of the clothing. And I never said she was selfish. I never said she was a bad mother. You put those words into my mouth, in your responses. What I did was question whether it was reasonable, and state I didn't think it was sensible. I still don't think it was sensible, compared to holding on to the Last Ditch in case of a financial emergency, such as subsidence, vet's fees, a new roof, or I don't know, school fees. Her right and prerogative, and reasonable, yes. Sensible? No. Really, I think you're being overly defensive and reading stuff in my original post which wasn't there.
By "not exactly limited in value", I of course didn't mean it was of "limitless value" - nothing is. I meant it wasn't cheap. I was replying to your post in which you said it was of "limited value". I interpreted "limited value" in your post to mean "worth not very much", and therefore I think it's pretty obvious that I was replying to that, and that what I meant by "not exactly limited in value" was that it had a largish financial value - I think most people would say something that could be sold to raise funds sufficient to buy half a house has a largish financial value.
I actually think it's "objectionable" that you've jumped down my throat about this, while not really commenting on other people's post where they've shared my concerns.
no subject
Ah, but I never actually said she was a bad mother. I said I saw it as a mistake she'd made, and later, that I didn't think she was a particularly good mother. From that, you've inferred I think she's a bad mother.
ou seem to have come round to the idea that Mrs Marlow spent it sensibly when she bought a horse for herself, rather than being a bad selfish mother - which was the idea that I truly objected to: the idea that a woman is a "bad mother" if she ever spends anything on herself that she doesn't absolutely need when her children are going without things that they want but don't need - which was your starting position - is really rather anti-woman and anti-mother, and generally objectionable.
I think you're reading entirely too much into my question as to whether it were reasonable for her to spend so much on herself or on only one of the children, while leaving one child without. I think I've made it clear what my position is - that it isn't that she spent the money on herself, but that she spent it on herself and at the same time included one out of her eight children in that, while excluding the rest. I haven't "accepted" anything - I've clarified my position while admitting I didn't put it very clearly to start with. I could have just edited my original post. Even at the beginning of this debate, I was saying I could see both sides of the argument, which is more than you did. I also didn't bring the clothes into it, someone else did, and I have said I don't really mind the hand-me-down aspect of the clothing. And I never said she was selfish. I never said she was a bad mother. You put those words into my mouth, in your responses. What I did was question whether it was reasonable, and state I didn't think it was sensible. I still don't think it was sensible, compared to holding on to the Last Ditch in case of a financial emergency, such as subsidence, vet's fees, a new roof, or I don't know, school fees. Her right and prerogative, and reasonable, yes. Sensible? No. Really, I think you're being overly defensive and reading stuff in my original post which wasn't there.
By "not exactly limited in value", I of course didn't mean it was of "limitless value" - nothing is. I meant it wasn't cheap. I was replying to your post in which you said it was of "limited value". I interpreted "limited value" in your post to mean "worth not very much", and therefore I think it's pretty obvious that I was replying to that, and that what I meant by "not exactly limited in value" was that it had a largish financial value - I think most people would say something that could be sold to raise funds sufficient to buy half a house has a largish financial value.
I actually think it's "objectionable" that you've jumped down my throat about this, while not really commenting on other people's post where they've shared my concerns.