trennels | Fairness in the Marlow household

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the fair/unfair treatment of the Marlow young by their parents. I'm thinking specifically the treatment of Nicola by her parents/mother in Cricket Term. Is there anyway this could have been handled better? Should it actually have been Nicola who was going to have to leave? Should they have told her or dropped it on her in the summer holidays? Should they have removed all the girls, or perhaps just both twins?

For that matter, should Lawrie have been given the Prosser? (I know this wasn't her parents' decision, I'm just interested whether people think it was a good judgement call on the part of the staff.)

In a similar vein, what about the horse business in Peter's Room? Was it fair that their mother bought Ginty a horse for her birthday, and said no-one else was to ride it? Was it reasonable to buy herself one before ensuring the children all had equal access to a horse for hunting? In effect, she created a situation where one daughter was the only one in the family who was unable to go hunting (without hiring a horse), which seems harsh to me. But then, I'm from a small family where such unequality with gifts never happened - is this normal for a large family? Was Lawrie's reaction reasonable, or did other readers take it as just one more example of her throwing whiny tantrums?

These two occasions seemed to me to best illustrate Mrs. Marlow's failings as a mother (and also perhaps where the children got their selfishness) - I wondered if anyone else felt the same.

Can anyone else think of any other examples of this kind of thing? Or of fairer treatment?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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"

Pretty near, though. On this thread:

Perhaps I should have reworded that to say Was it reasonable to spend so much on herself when some of her children are going without some things? link (http://www.livejournal.com/community/trennels/3795.html?thread=63699#t63699)

and by "some things" you explicitly said in the same comment

But on the other hand, it seems like she's spending money on something pretty frivolous when some of her children don't even get new best clothes

So yes, this "got interpreted" as "New party clothes for all is more important than Mrs. Marlow!" because that is precisely what it appeared to be you were saying.

But I didn't ever say she shouldn't have bought the horse, did I? I said I was conflicted over it, or words to that effect. I posed it as a question for debate. I don't see how you get from a question like "Perhaps I should have reworded that to say 'Was it reasonable...?'" to a statement of "New party clothes for all is more important than Mrs. Marlow!", even if "... seems pretty frivolous" is en route.

I think you're mistaking questions and thoughts for statement of intent. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I wasn't sure how I stood on this (clearer, that is, than saying "On one hand it's fair enough, on the other hand it seems ...etc" and "I'm conflicted about this" "I'm not saying she shouldn't have bought it, just that it doesn't seem sensible" and "I'm not actually bothered about hand-me-downs per se, more by the difference between them and a new pony" and actually asking "Was it reasonable... etc?" ).

It does seem that questions raised for debate and issues aired are seen as actual statements of belief by you. I think my comments were clearly those of someone undecided and thinking things over, and trying to put a finger on what exactly was troubling about the situation (as excellently pinpointed by

ajhalluk) rather than a manifesto consisting of anti-woman and anti-mother attitudes.

But I didn't ever say she shouldn't have bought the horse, did I? I said I was conflicted over it, or words to that effect. I posed it as a question for debate. I don't see how you get from a question like "Perhaps I should have reworded that to say 'Was it reasonable...?'" to a statement of "New party clothes for all is more important than Mrs. Marlow!", even if "... seems pretty frivolous" is en route.

Because, as you note yourself (http://www.livejournal.com/community/trennels/3795.html?thread=106963#t106963), questions are not intrinsically neutral. The format in which a question is presented - the assumptions that you make when you ask the question - tells the person reading the question something about what your thinking is. You noticed that yourself when I asked a question which made implicit assumptions orthogonal to your own. But your own implicit assumptions are, it seems, not up for debate - nor are you even prepared to acknowledge you are making them. I have now checked the threads, and it appears that - despite your horrified denial when I made your implicit assumptions explicit - I wasn't confusing one commenter with another.

It wasn't a "horrified" denial, though it was an accurate one - my comment re clothes was a reply to this (http://www.livejournal.com/community/trennels/3795.html?thread=62419#t62419) post - so as you can see, I wasn't the one who initially linked the clothes to the horse. Which is what I originally said. I even replied to your apology to clarify that I had discussed it, just had not started the discussion, and have since, several times, clarified that my objection was primarily hand-me-down clothes for the children as compared to the money spent on a new horse.

I also asked in my original post, "Was Lawrie's reaction reasonable, or did other readers take it as just one more example of her throwing whiny tantrums?" - I'd say that that combined with the question about whether Mrs. Marlow was being reasonable shows that at that time I hadn't decided either way. If saying "Is is reasonable" implies I think it isn't reasonable, then according to your logic, I mustn't think either is reasonable.

Because, as you note yourself, questions are not intrinsically neutral.

I didn't make any such observation - you made a comment:

We can say that Mrs Marlow is there, making the parenting decisions that need to be made - which we, with the benefit of omniscent observers, get to criticise.

and I replied to it:

If we, as omniscent observers, shouldn't criticise her parenting decisions (and no parents are perfect), which you seem to be implying*, then perhaps this community should shut down.

The lack of question marks show that there isn't a question there. And I don't see how you can say my assumptions aren't up for question, when I actually say in the very post you've linked to with regard to my interpretation "* though I could of course be wrong about this!". I admit there and then that my assumption may be wrong - how is this being unprepared to debate it?

You're not making my implicit views explicit, you're stating your inferrals as though they are fact. Hardly the same thing. And that's what I'm objecting to. And you're refusing to admit that your inferrals could possibly, just possibly, be inaccurate readings - unlike myself.

I'm not going to continue this discussion, as basically it's devolving itno a "you said" "no, you said!", which is a) terrible boring for the observers, and b) frustrating for me when you obviously are superimposing your agenda and impressions on my actual words. If you want to actually answer the question ajhalluk put to you regarding whether or not you'd attack someone criticising Commander Marlow, or enter into a debate about his absentee fatherhood then of course I'll be happy to participate. But this is going nowhere.

I admit there and then that my assumption may be wrong - how is this being unprepared to debate it?

You're not prepared to debate the assumptions you made in the questions you asked in your original post. You're not even prepared to admit you made assumptions. You seem to be starting from the point that all your assumptions are neutral, not up for questions or debate, or even to acknowledge that you made them.

I'm not going to continue this discussion

Evidently you are not.

She isn't. Check below. Don't worry. To my certain knowledge this is the fourth fandom to which she has brought her own special debating skills (and to two other cross-fandom forums to boot). From Kabul to Kamchatschka, from Kandahar to Kansas, wherever two or more fen are gathered together, they shall debate whether

yonmei is Wrong but Wromatic, or Right but Repulsive.

ajhalluk, I love you and want to have your tiny internet babies. Please flist me!

Um, that sounded ruder than I intended it to; I just meant, will you please friend me?

Fairness in the Marlow household

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject