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

[cat_kind]

No: HPFGUIDX 123731


> Tonks:
(snip)
> Molly has done more than her share of work and if she doesn't want 
> to become some sort of *modern* witch that can only fullfill herself 
> by working at some job that she would probably hate, then I say that 
> she does not have to!!!  Money isn't everything. And as to their old 
> age. Again this is the WW, not the *modern* Muggle world. They has 7 
> children, the children will take care of them, just like it has 
> always been in the old days. That is why people with no money have 
> lots of kids. Or at least one of the reasons. Their world is not 
> like ours. 

catkind: What an interesting discussion.  (As usual) I find points to
agree with on both sides.  What does disturb me is that a lot of
people seem to turn this into a "women vs men" issue, or "feminists vs
traditionalists". 

Why should anyone, male or female, be obliged to work for money if
they can live without and choose not to?  Of course, if Arthur were
unhappy about the division of labour in his marriage, it would be a
different question.  Has anyone seen any signs of this?

And why shouldn't one partner in a marriage be the assertive one?
Perhaps that is the way their relationship works, Arthur goes out and
works hard at the ministry, and it is Molly's job to discipline the
children.  If that suits them, why not? Why should there be some
prescribed way that Healthy Relationships Must Be, either with equal
footing for all or with one partner being the boss or whatever? Again
and of course, if Molly resented having to do all the discipline, or
Arthur resented being treated like a little boy on occasion, then
sure, it's time they did some talking.  Again, I see no evidence that
they are anything but happy as they are.  And Molly doesn't just boss
Arthur around, she bosses everyone around, which to me suggests that
that's simply the way her personality is. Are we going to condemn
assertive people across the board? Or only if they happen to be
full-time housewives as well? 

The idea that Molly should somehow be obliged to go out to work
because her children are away at school I find very disturbing.  Of
course, a lot of full time parents would find that after their
children are at school they have some time on their hands and would
like to get out there and meet people and do something for themselves.
And yes, they might enjoy having that bit more money in the family. 
On the other hand, starting a new career after such a long break is
hard work, and some people might want to take some time to relax, or
involve themselves with voluntary work first.  Indeed, Molly is doing
precisely the latter with her work for the Order.   
There also seems to be an idea hanging around that it is the kids'
right to have more money in the family or something. Um, why? I mean,
if they weren't fed and clothed then maybe.  But I don't see that they
have a right to the latest broomstick or regular exotic holidays or
even regular new /new/ clothes. 

The Weasleys seem to have decided that there are things more important
than having new gear all the time. For example, when they win money in
a lottery they splash almost all of it on a big family holiday.  If
they wanted to live a wealthier lifestyle, if they (Molly and Arthur)
actually resented being poor, wouldn't they have kept that money for
day-to-day things? Okay, once or twice they are worried about
immediate expenses, for example schoolbooks in CoS, but that seems to
me to be more bookkeeping worries than a real unhappiness with their
financial situation.

Sure, the kids sometimes resent this choice of their parents'.
Children hate being different, and are bound to be a bit jealous if
their friends have more nice things than them.  Sometimes, though,
kids don't know what's best for them.  By all the evidence, they're
growing up healthy, doing great in school, and ending up in good careers.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people have *duties* imposed from
on high, whether to work or to bring up children or to obey their
spouses or whatever.  I certainly detest the idea that said duties
should depend on whether you are male or female. IMO, you pays your
money (or in this case, puts in your hours) and you takes your choice. 

catkind

ps Having written that, I see Salit makes a similar point rather
better in post #123713.  I'll post anyway, I hope I'm at least making
the point in a different way.