Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthurwas Why I like Ginn

[megalynn44]

No: HPFGUIDX 123846



> bboyminn;
<snip> There is nothing wrong with being
> a 'working class' guy, and the truest measure of a man is not the
> pointless luxuries he can provide his family. Love and affection 
will
> out value a snowmobile and a bunch of designer clothes any day.
<snip>

Megalynn:

In reading through everyone's posts there seems to me to be a 
divergence from my question. I am not disputing that the Weasley's 
are good parents that have made a good life for their kids. I do not 
begrudge Arthur his job or Molly her housewife status. I think they 
are great.

What I am having trouble with is that in books 2, 3, and 4 all of the 
children were gone from the house 10 months out of the year. This 
leaves seriously little housework or cooking or errands 
comparatively. Also, the lack of money was big issue with the family. 
A real problem at times. All of the family feels teh strain. Even 
Molly, laments that she wishes she could get Ron better dress robes.

If we can stipulate that this was indeed the case, then why wouldn't 
Molly do something with that time to make a little extra for the 
family? Is it a social thing? Have we seen any other evidence in 
canon to explain why it would not be obvious for a mother with an 
empty nest and a cash strapped family to get some sort of side job?

~megalynn