Fairness in the Marlow household

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's true, she did get The Idiot Boy, though of course she couldn't have known that at the time. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't a gift - didn't Nicola and Peter buy him, and then Nicola and Lawrie do swops? I don't think it would have hurt to say, "You'll get one eventually", though of course Lawrie would have then mithered and mithered to know when, and if she never had got one, would have remembered ever after that she'd been promised one.

As for the way I was raised - I certainly wasn't ever taught that me and my brother were clones, or even that we had the same needs or desires. And we well knew the world wasn't a fair place to be - but my parents both thought they should be as even-handed with us as they could be. It is possible to teach your children that "life isn't like that" while still ensuring they get as equal attention and opportunities as you can provide. As it happens, I ended up at private school, and my brother didn't, because I passed the entrance exam well enough to get a scholarship, but he failed it - this was an object lesson to both of us that what happens to you in life isn't all completely "fair" or "even", even if your parents do try give you equal birthday presents.

Also, as you mention - you got riding lessons, your sister got ballet lessons, your brother got driving lessons - in the examples you've given you did all get something. Lawrie was obviously of the opinion that she doesn't get anything. Giny gets a horse, and Lawrie wants one too - not really a case of "wanting different things".

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Also, as you mention - you got riding lessons, your sister got ballet lessons, your brother got driving lessons - in the examples you've given you did all get something.

Yes, but none of us all got something at the same time. If I add it up over the 18 years each of us spent as dependent children, my parents were probably fairly even-handed, though I doubt they were totting up and allowing for inflation and so forth. If you picked any one incident, no doubt it would have looked differently.

but my parents both thought they should be as even-handed with us as they could be.

Indeed - as they could be. It was impossible to buy all the children horses. Ginty obviously really wanted one: Lawrie seems (frankly) to have only wanted one because Ginty got one. Why deprive Ginty because Lawrie was going to stomp round going "it's not fair"?

Lawrie was obviously of the opinion that she doesn't get anything.

Yes. But then, Lawrie was frequently of the opinion that she doesn't get anything - a state of mind frequently found in youngest children of large families. (My sister had it to a certain extent, though not to the degree Lawrie does: I figure it's a defense mechanism the youngest child develops to avoid getting overlooked.)

[carmine-rose.livejournal.com]

Lawrie seems (frankly) to have only wanted one because Ginty got one.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I do agree that she didn't have the same burning desire that Ginty did.

Indeed - as [even-handed as] they could be. It was impossible to buy all the children horses.

But in this case, it would have meant neither of us got a horse, or that we shared one. I'm not suggesting they all should have gotten a horse, but certainly a horse (if not Catkin) could have been shared among a couple of them. It isn't cruel for a horse to have several riders as long as they are all decent with it, and it's looked after properly.

But then, Lawrie was frequently of the opinion that she doesn't get anything

If I add it up over the 18 years each of us spent as dependent children, my parents were probably fairly even-handed, though I doubt they were totting up and allowing for inflation and so forth.

Well, yes. I'm not saying she's right about it, just that in this case I can see where she's coming from. As ajhalluk2 has pointed out below, Catkin is an enormous present and none of the rest of the kids have much of a chance of having an equivalent ever bought for them. It doesn't seem (from the evidence we have, and the knowledge Mrs. Marlow has when she makes the decision) that it will even out over 18 years or so.