Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny

[kgpopp]

No: HPFGUIDX 123698


Jocelyn Grunow <aandj at l...> wrote:
> For example, the Weasleys' poverty is often discussed, but why are 
> they poor? Because Arthur's job doesn't pay well. Why doesn't he 
> get a better paying job? <snip> Arthur has made the decision not to 
> move further up in the Ministry because he loves muggle inventions, 
> and he loves his job. All well and good, and I certainly don't want 
> to suggest he should move to a job he hated, but he has 6 children 
> to support & establish - isn't this a very selfish decision?
> <snip>  
>
> megalynn44 wrote:
> I myself have often had several issues with the Poor Weasleys. The 
> first issue is the one Jocelyn so directly pointed out. If you are 
> going to have 7 children, you should be prepared to make some 
> sacrifices for them. Now, I am in no way saying the Weasley's are 
> bad parents. It is obvious they love their children very much, and 
> make them their top priority.
> 
> A second issue I have is Molly Weasley's role as a homemaker.  
> Having so many young children at home, having to raise AND home-
> school them certainly warrants a stay-at-home mom. However, with
> all the children out of the house 10 months out of the year, what 
> does she do all day?  If the family was so strapped for cash (and 
> the years when 5 of their children were in school-books 2 and 3- 
> were certainly the tightest) why not get a job? Come to think of 
> it, how many mothers in the work force have we seen in canon?
> 
> Now my last bit of nitpicking. BY book 6, the Weasley's being poor 
> better not be an issue. There are now only 2 Weasley children in 
> school and without jobs. This can hardly be a huge financial 
> burden, even for a government job. It shouldn't have been that bad 
> in OOTP.

Now Kristen .....
Hi,  I've been out of the loop for a while but this post caught my 
eye and I had to jump in w/ my 2 cents.  So here it goes.

First I surprized that the posts are refering to the Weasley's as 
living in poverty.   I'm not really sure where I draw the line 
between poverty, poor or working class; but  to me poverty suggest an 
inablity to feed and cloth your family. Poor would be scrapping by 
with the necessities.  And "working class" means no luxury but the 
occasional frills and treats. 

I guess I saw the Weasley's as somewhere between working class and 
poor; because they have to live on a budget; the kids wear 
handmedowns, and their belongs are modest and used.  I always to the 
reference of them being poor as the comments of typical kids who are 
enveous of kids who parents are rich to wealthy.

Why should Molly and Arthur appoligies for not being wealthy?   Their 
kids have food and clothes, they manage to get them some frills like 
brooms and pets.  Granted they do not get tons of toys at x-mass but 
they way I read it the kids are not lacking in the basics.   

Look at it another way what would thier kids get if they had more 
money?  More toys at Xmas?  Nicer brooms? More candy?  More trendy 
clothes?  Yes these are nice things but they should not be the 
measure if the kids happiness or good parenting.   I just don't see 
what is missing from these kids lives? 

I think JK is trying to teach kids a valuable lessson about money 
through Ron, Precy, and Draco.  On the extrems we have, Precy who is 
a pratt that thinks a persons value or importance comes from their 
job title & bank account.  And Draco who values people based on their 
bank account and their blood line.  Niether of these views is 
appealing to me and I have little hope that Precy or Draco will see 
the errors of their ways.   But then there is Ron, who I see as a 
typical kid who wants to be popular and fit in; and thinks that it 
would be easier if he had new and nicer things; and like most of 
sometimes get jelous of those who have more.   

But life is like that, there will always be those who have something 
you don't, or someone who has a better model than what you have.  
Learning to value what you have, and learning that having "things" is 
not what bring you true happiness is important.  I have hope that Ron 
will grow out of this phase and come to realize that he his better 
off for not having everything handed to him, and that his happines 
comes froms his friends and family not his possessions. 

To me good parents do not spoil their kids with toys but rather teach 
you values, support you, belive in you and love you even when you 
make mistakes.  I think this is the lesson JK is trying to teach.

I'm not saying there are not things that I'd like to see Molly and 
Arthur  do better.  But I don't think they should take a different or 
2nd job just so the kids can have more toys or "cooler" belongs.