I know Molly.....

[jwcpgh]

No: HPFGUIDX 84057

Well, well, well.  Could it be that we've finally discovered 
Kneasy's soft spot he's been trying to hide with that hard, cynical, 
suspicious shell of his?  A sentimental streak-how sweet!

<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Molly seems to have been on the receiving end of some hard words 
> recently, all of them from female  posters. I wonder why?

Laura:

Maybe because we're the ones who have to work out what it means to 
be a mother.  Men have their own job to do about parenting but 
that's not the discussion here.  We can all agree that in the 
western world, anyhow, the lives and roles of women have been 
radically opened over the past generation or so.  We're all figuring 
out what it means, societally and personally.

Kneasy:

> The WW is highly traditional, including the portrayals of women. 
There  seems  to be a strict divide;
> what might  be called career types with no apparent families 
> (MacGonagall, Skeeter) and the home based (Molly, Petunia) with no 
> career. No compromise or blending of the two so far as I can see.
> 
> I feel  that I understand Molly perfectly. She is the archetype  
of the traditional English mum, a species that is rapidly 
disappearing as more and more wives return to work  as soon as 
practicable after producing a family. <snip> 
> Certain traits are essential to claim membership - family comes 
first, always; children never really  become adults, even if they 
are 35 and settled down, they are still their  children and likely 
to be the recipients of advice or censure, wanted or not, 
appropriate or not. Approval or acceptance of outsiders is 
conditional and will be withdrawn abruptly if unacceptable behaviour 
is detected or even suspected.Daughters are generally treated with a 
light touch but  sons, that's different.
> 
> Sons are naturally gullible and totally  incapable of looking 
after themselves. When young they will be led astray by manipulative 
friends, when older they become targets for some designing tart. No 
woman is really good enough to deserve  their son, but usually they 
manage to bite their lip and somehow refrain from pointing out the 
glaringly obvious faults this child-snatcher  exhibits. <snip> 

> Of course, in these days of personal growth  and self-
actualisation they are  generally scorned. But for  generation after 
generation they ruled  supreme. They knew that 'family' concerned 
the group and took priority; any back-sliding into 'self' was 
potentially dangerously anti-family and was viewed with extreme 
suspicion.
> 
> Recognise any of Molly in there? Thought so.
> 
> In these terms Harry is an honorary  son and as such should be 
> protected from being led astray (Ron and the flying Ford Anglia), 
from designing females (possibly Hermione) and from unsuitable 
influences (Sirius).
> 
> Molly is not  intellectual. Caring and worrying is much more 
> fundamental than mere intellect. Gut instinct rules. Things are in 
> simple black and white, good and bad. Anything, real or  imagined, 
that poses a risk to her offspring (including Harry) is bad and must 
merit objections even if a coherent argument  cannot be formed.
> 
> Could you ever see her reaching an accommodation with Sirius over 
> Harry? I can't.

Laura:

Oh my-you have bitten off a mouthful here, haven't you?  Well, this 
isn't the time or place to get into the intricacies of feminist 
theory and practice.  And I'm in no position to argue with your 
portrayal of the traditional English mum.  Just a few thoughts as 
regards what you have to say in the contect of HP:

The stereotype you describe has good and bad traits, imo.  Some of 
the good traits become bad when taken to extremes.  It is *not* 
cute, loving or desirable to treat your grown children as 
emotionally dependent all their lives.  If this is where Molly is 
headed, that's bad news.  I don't think her kids will put up with 
it.  It is *not* desirable to lose your identity in your family.  
Women who are mothers, even full time mothers (like me) have to have 
some sort of independent emotional and/or intellectual lives to be 
healthy and balanced human beings. 
 The notion that a woman would do nothing with her life but be a 
mother is a relatively new one to civilization.  For most of human 
history, women had other time-consuming, laborious tasks to do as 
well as caring for children.  Those tasks were part of what was 
necessary for survival-food gathering and preparation, making and 
repairing clothing, as well as whatever income-producing work they 
had to do.  The fierce instinct to protect the family from a hostile 
world is an ancient one, and was necessary to insure family 
survival, but to suggest that this level of insularity is still 
necessary is, I think, wrong.  

There's no question that Molly and Arthur have done something right-
they have 7 kids and 6 of them are admirable.  There's also no 
question that Molly is loving and generous to Harry.  She does and 
says what she does and says out of genuine caring and fondness for 
him.  My feeling about her, though, is that she's too invested in 
her role as mom and has nothing else to help her form an identity.  
That's why she goes overboard with her reactions sometimes.  She 
seems threatened when Harry shows understandable and appropriate 
affection for Sirius.  But she should have known that he could give 
Harry things she couldn't, and vice versa.  Sirius can't hug 
Harry "like a mother"; Molly can't identify with Harry's feelings of 
being trapped and isolated.  I think Sirius could easily have shared 
Harry with Molly.  The problem is hers, not his.  No mother can be 
everything to her children, and thinking that is a sure recipe for 
disaster.  

It is rather interesting that JKR would portray such a traditional 
societal structure.  The only working mother we hear about is 
Hermione's mom, but we don't know her at all.  (Besides, she's a 
muggle.)  Obviously this doesn't square with JKR's own personal 
experience.  I don't think that we can take it as an endorsement of 
any particular societal model, though.  Several posters have 
observed that the WW is traditional, even old-fashioned, in many 
ways, and this is a significant one.   And a number of essays as 
well as posts and discussions at Nimbus centered on whether the HP 
books can be seen as feminist or not, just because of the ways 
female characters are presented.  Maybe JKR, as an author already 
trying to create a very complex world, just decided not to bring in 
the kinds of gender issues we're talking about here.   It may just 
be a default decision-this social setup is supposed to be a neutral 
background so as not to distract from the subject we're looking at.  
(Does that make sense?)  

This thread has included a number of different descriptions of 
mothering styles.  I'm not going to say that any one is right and 
all the others are wrong.  We all bring different sets of skills, 
perspectives and experiences to our parenting, and none of us is 
perfect.  (I'm sure not-just ask my kids and they'll tell you in 
detail what my failings are!)  What works for one child may not work 
for your next one.  It's a great mystery, parenting is.  I don't 
think Molly is naturally malicious or intentionally overprotective.  
I just think she needs to get out more and get a life of her own.  

Laura, who's still trying to figure it out after 18 years and knows 
she still has a lot to learn