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

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.

Fairness in the Marlow household

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject