trennels | Fairness in the Marlow household

Entry tags:

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

And I never said it was "unlimited wealth". I said "a valuable piece of
jewellery".

What you said was "It wasn't exactly limited in value" - and that is precisely what it was: limited. It was a one-off bonus that could be spent any number of ways. You 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. Mrs Marlow bought herself Chocbar, and it was a sensible and right purchase, and you accept that: good.

That there is something skewed about Ginty getting such an expensive present is something I've come round to, having read so many well-reasoned points about it on this thread. But arguing from that to "Mrs Marlow's a bad mother" is something else again.

Oh, for crying out loud! I don't think it is a reasonable interpretation of the original essay to characterise it as "anti-woman" or "anti-mother". The question was not, "are mothers bad?" but "is Pam Marlow a bad mother?"

Actually, I think compared to Helena Merrick or Mrs West or Madame Orly (and absolutely one hundred percent as compared to Mrs Frewen) she's a shining example of motherhood (and that in relation to the Prosser she treats Nick as an adult, and, at least if Jan Scott's analysis is correct, allows Nick, by giving her access to relevant information, an opportunity to play a part in shaping her own destiny).

But I think that "Is Pam Marlow a bad mother?" is an invitation to debate, not a statement which is in and of itself objectionable.

If you want to debate motherhood in the Marlow books, there are much worse examples than Pam Marlow to consider, in my view, and I'm posting a separate essay on the topic above.

Again, thanks for being more articulate than me, ajhalluk.

(screened comment)

What I meant was that if the children didn't get treated evenly (as shown in the above examples), that might account for them behaving selfishly - having a "grab it before anyone else does" attitude. I object to her treating the children unevenly, not to her treating herself to something. Though again, I still don't think it was a sensible thing to do. It's certainly possible to have failings as a mother and not be a bad mother. It's also possible to think someone is a bad mother, or has failings s a mother, without being either "anti-mother" or "anti-women".

Again, it's your interpretation that's "obnoxious". Again, you're taking offence at something you've inferred, not something I've stated.

Perhaps in future you should clarify someone's intent before you go on the attack. Frankly I find your inferral that I hold such attitudes, on very little evidence, both insulting and unjustified.

So if the incident concerned had shown Commander Marlow selling the Last Ditch to buy himself and Nicola a pair of matched 24 foot keelboats you would consider anyone questioning whether the act concerned was that of a bad father, and constituted selfishness on his part that would mean that the person asking the question was anti-man and anti-father?

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?

It's really not part of the cultural view of mothers and fathers to ask whether a man with eight children is selfish because he doesn't devote himself to them, putting their needs before his, 100% of the time. It's not part of the culture to ask if it's wrong for a married man and a father to have a job that requires him to spend so much of his time so far from home.

It is a cultural given to demand that a woman shall prioritise her children's needs above her own (someone, evidently not

carmine_rose - I got confused - suggested that it was selfish of Pam Marlow to have bought Chocbar when her children didn't even have new party clothes): 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.

To quote a friend: "Because in the dictionary under 'mother' is a magic mirror-of-Erised-style picture of everyone's don't-wanna-act-like-a-grown-up fantasy, wheras under 'father' is a dot disappearing into the distance, possibly scattering money in his wake. And that does a disservice to both mothers and fathers."

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!"

But he didn't, she did.

Because she's there. He isn't. She's making parenting decisions: he's not.

Well, yes. She made the decision, not him. So how can we examine his rightness or wrongness?

I don't really get your point - is it that because he's not there, he should be held equally responsible for the debatable* parenting decisions she makes on her own, because she's forced to make them on her own, due to his absence?

and

ajhalluk was asking whether you would think that someone questioning Commander Marlow's parenting was anti-man and anti-father, since you seem to think questioning Mrs Marlow's parenting choices is anti-woman and anti-mother - you haven't answered that yet

Judging his abilities, and strengths and weaknesses as an absentee father is something else entirely separate from assessing Mrs. Marlow's decision to give a horse to one child out of eight. For all we know, he might have been appalled by this, or he might have whole-heartedly agreed. We don't know, so in this case, we can't judge.

We can, however, debate his parenting skills and choices as a separate issue.

*debatable because well, we're having a debate about it.

So how can we examine his rightness or wrongness?

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. Mr Marlow is simply absent, making (as far as we can see) no parenting decisions at all. Parenting decisions have to be made - and we can (or we could, except that the cultural paradigm does not support this) examine the utter wrongness of Mr Marlow simply escaping any responsibility for making parenting decisions. Which lack of responsibility is... unexamined.

So examine it. What do you think of his absence and his escaping responsibility? And actually, there has been a thread (http://www.livejournal.com/community/trennels/792.html?nc=49) in fatherhhod, if you look back, but it seems to have concentrated more on Edwin's parenting decesions.

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. Or is it only certain things that are up for discussion?

* though I could of course be wrong about this!

(no subject)

yonmei.livejournal.com - 2005-08-31 15:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

carmine-rose.livejournal.com - 2005-08-31 17:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yonmei.livejournal.com - 2005-08-31 17:42 (UTC) - Expand

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.

(no subject)

yonmei.livejournal.com - 2005-08-31 17:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com - 2005-08-31 21:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

carmine-rose.livejournal.com - 2005-08-31 21:17 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

carmine-rose.livejournal.com - 2005-08-31 21:26 (UTC) - Expand

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?

You mean,I presume, apart from a statistically significant percentage of this community in various pubs around the country, in various piss-ups at which I have been personally present?

What culture are you talking about here? The "culture" in which Antonia Forest's works are a vital and important text? Well, if you're proposing to interrogate them, in the words of Anthony Merrick "that's half an hour of your life accounted for, then".

In what "culture" is it a "given" to demand the above, and why do you assume that that culture reads onto this culture, without pause for consideration?

Your culture may be inordinately sexist - in which case I offer you my sincere condolences - but I'm from Lancashire.

...okay.

Walking away from this conversation now.

Ah? In Earth language, losing the argument?

Yes.

Sometimes it's better to lose the argument than to have the argument, because nobody wins.

Or, in Gallifreyan language: "A coward. Any day."

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.

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

I apologise for this - I've been following this via livejournal and via threaded posts on Gmail, and I evidently got your comments confused with someone else's.

Don't get me wrong, I have discussed the clothing issue, and agreed there seems to be a misbalance between pony on one hand and hand-me-downs on the other, but I didn't link the two in my original posts.

As I said - I think I must have got your comments mixed up with someone else's, and I truly apologise for that - it's a side-effect of Gmail, but I really should have noticed.

Will attempt to respond to your other points later, but am commenting on your other thread now. ;-)

I said I saw it as a mistake she'd made, and later, that I didn't think she was a particularly good mother.

You know, it was this comment that got me convinced - since you were rapidly denying things I thought I remembered you saying (and when I checked, found you had said) that I must have got two commenters confused.

Checked, and found I hadn't: just that you don't want to look at the assumptions you were making all down the thread. You don't even want to acknowledge that you made them.

I take back my apology.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only