Mothers and Fathers (was: Re: James gave his life, why no protection from him?)

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 107795

SSSusan sssaid:
>>>If someone wants to argue that there is something in Molly's
*specific* temperament which makes this likely AND that that same
thing is *NOT* in Arthur's specific temperament, then I'll listen.<<<

Janet
>>Okay, I'll argue that, because it's what I said before after Molly 
showed us her ugly side in OotP.
<SNIP>
Molly, in my opinion, takes the limited or short view. <SNIP>  
She's still trying desperately to run her life and her children's 
lives as if it were peacetime.  And she hasn't been able to put 
aside her determination to protect people who neither need nor want 
to be protected (Fred and George),nor to gauge how much protection 
even underage people should have when they're in a wartime situation 
(Ron, Ginny, and of course Harry).<<


SSSusan:
I'm afraid I really don't see where you're getting this.  She's 
living her life as if it were peacetime?  How so?  If she were in 
denial about the war, why would the boggart have taken the shape of 
all those that she loves, dead?  She *is* protective--maybe even 
overprotective--but I don't see where you get that she's living her 
life as if there's no war.  

 
Janet:
>> There are things Arthur wouldn't do, even to protect his 
children, because he can see past that desire to the war as a 
whole.  In my opinion, Molly is not at this point able to do that.  
This may be because of her two dead brothers in the last war.  
However, by the description of their deaths, she should be proud of 
them and point to them as role models, instead of trying to wrap up 
her children in swaddling clothes.<<
 
Aggie replied:
> I'm sorry but how do you know what Arthur would or wouldn't do in 
> the face of imminent death of one of his children?  I'm sure Molly 
> IS proud of her brothers, that doesn't mean she wants any other 
> member of her family to go the same way.


SSSusan:
I agree w/ Aggie.  I just don't see where, in canon, you can see 
things that Arthur WOULDN'T do??  That was the whole point of my 
original post--that people seem to be assuming Molly would give in 
if threatened or blackmailed by Voldy.  And she might!!  But why had 
no one pointed out that Arthur might, as well?  Or *anyone* whose 
loved one was in danger?  I still believe that no evidence has been 
presented to show that we can be sure in any way that Arthur 
wouldn't fall victim to this any more or less than Molly.
 
 
Janet:
>> If Voldemort or his agents are looking for a weak link, they may 
well choose Molly and threaten her through one of her children -- 
I think Percy is the most likely since they've got him where they 
want him and Molly knows this. I don't *know* whether or not she 
would fold under such pressure, but I think it's much more likely 
than Arthur doing so.<<
 
Aggie replied:
> Where in canon do are you deriving your theories from? Please 
> enlighten me?  (Seriously!)  I don't remember reading anything 
> that would suggest this.  I think this is boiling down to the 
> original point of mother's love Vs father's love as opposed 
> to 'Molly' Vs 'Arthur'.  I *can* see LV using Molly's motherly 
> love against her though. (Just as much as I can see him using it 
> against Arthur.)


SSSusan:
Absolutely.  This *was* my original point.  ANYONE who loves someone 
else is a potential liability if that someone is abducted or 
threatened.  I still see no *evidence from canon* that Molly is the 
most likely to fall into this trip.
  
 
Janet:
>>For one thing, Molly might well be capable of convincing herself 
that Voldemort would keep his word.  Not Arthur, not for one 
moment.<<
 
Aggie:
> What????  Why would Molly believe *anything* that LV promises 
> her?  I  don't go along with this for one second!!!  She's a 
> mother - NOT stupid!! 


SSSusan:
If an apology is in order, then I should second it, because this is 
how I felt when reading this post, too.  I still maintain that there 
are **assumptions** being made about Molly, likely deriving from her 
being a woman & a MOM, AND about Arthur, likely deriving from his 
being a man, but ignoring his being a father.

Again, I'm HAPPY to consider counter-arguments, but I think we need 
to see some citations from canon for them to be at all convincing.

Siriusly Snapey Susan (a mother, who's sure her husband would be 
equally susceptible to blackmail revolving around harming one of our 
children.)

P.S.  But I agreed with your post in 107770, Janet!! :-)