I know Molly.....

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 84066

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jwcpgh" <jwcpgh at y...> wrote:
> 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!
>

So, once again crossing swords with Laura. I  had a suspicion that this 
post might provoke her. Let's see what a little more provocation
produces.

No, it's  an analytical streak.
Dissecting characters is part of the game and I was doing just that as 
a corrective to those rubbishing Molly  because she did not comply 
with prevailing prejudices of what was fashionable behaviour in the 
circumstances that prevailed.

 
> 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.  

Taking  any behaviour to extremes is counter- productive. As to having
good and bad points, show me a perfect child-rearing system applicable
to all children, all parents, in all circumstances.
And who said anything about cute? Escaping the all-enveloping embrace
of your mum was a  rite of passage necessary to achieve adulthood.
It's not the children who end up emotionally  dependent, it's the mother.
Molly  worrying  about  things like Bill's hair shows Molly's emotional
attachment, not Bill's. I don't consider this to be an undesirable trait, 
more a natural maternal effect; then again I haven't read the latest trendy 
parenting manuals so I may be out of date.

 
> 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.

I  don't question your right to choice, I  do dispute your contention
that yours is the only correct choice for all women and that non-
compliance signifies irredeemable descent into vegetablehood.
I was under the impression that the feminist agenda was about
expanding choice rather than imposing a new rigid  orthodoxy.
Offering a choice is not compatible with imposing a dictat. 
Or am I  wrong?
 
Laura:
>  The notion that a woman would do nothing with her life but be a 
> mother is a relatively new one to civilization.  

Is this how you see Molly?
Thinking about it, maybe it's true.
Seven kids, each of them totally dependent until  they are, say, of
school age would  take a fair chunk of years and commitment. But 
if you want or end up with a family that large, what is the alternative? 
There is none. The home is it. Probably explains her fantasies about
Lockhart.

This new notion (in our world) is the result of low child mortality more
than anything else. Near where I live (a  country town) there is an old
graveyard. The number of gravestones marking children under 5 out-
numbers adults by 3:1.
By that reckoning, a hundred years ago perhaps two of Molly's brood
would  have got to Hogwarts. That would have given her much more
opportunity to engage in fun activities outside the family.


Laura:
> 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.  
>
IMO the world should always be considered as potentially hostile.
Neither Nature nor individuals outside the circle of knowledge can
be accepted as automatically benign. To  act otherwise is to be a
new Candide.
Consider, Molly *knows* it is a hostile world out  there. Voldy is on
the prowl again and he *kills*. He also has hidden allies. Her family
is  associated with Voldy's prime target. It's not insularity, it's fear.
  
Laura:
> 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.

Oh, Molly has an identity, she is not a blank, a cipher. Identity is
nothing to do with complying with an observers stereotype of what
she should be. The traditional mum was not weak or ineffectual.
An assault on the family and you have a tigress on your hands.
Molly  does not trust Sirius and Sirius has done nothing to engender
trust. She suspects him and his motives. Justifiably.
Harry may need a father figure, but is Sirius it?
An escapee who has spent 90% of his adult life in goal, who was
indirectly responsible for the deaths of Harry's parents, who  was
indirectly responsible for Harry being attacked by Dementors and
who comes from a family of supremacists? 
You may make excuses for Sirius, Molly won't. He is a danger.
He cannot be trusted to keep Harry safe and that is the only
criterium that matters. Group hugs and male bonding are
irrelevant compared to that.

Laura: 
>  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?)  
> 

Hmm. Must all books be considered in the light of feminism?
How boring that would  be. As well as being totally inappropriate.
Half the population disregarded to please the other half.
Brainwash 'em early, is that the idea? Acceptable stereotypes
only, otherwise the crusade is threatened? Can't be  very  sure
of your ground if that's the case.

Kneasy
Always willing to differ