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

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 123871



Megalynn:

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?

The Weasley situation doesn't make much sense. I think Molly would
be likely to do something extra to earn money if she could. If she 
didn't mind her kids having so little, she wouldn't fret about it. Not to
mention that Bill and Charlie are now off working, and in many families
(mine included) it's common for siblings/aunts/uncles/etc to help out
those in their family who might not be as fortunate, especially the
children. Why wouldn't Bill or Charlie send Ron or Ginny the occasional 
useful gift like a new wand, set of schoolbooks, or dress robes, knowing
as they do how strapped their parents are to provide these things?

They would in a more real situation, I think (especially given the loving
type of family we see in the Weasleys). The real explanation is that
JKR is using Ron to make some points about being rich in possessions
versus being rich in love. She can't do that unless she has the Weasleys
constantly struggling to provide. Thus Molly doesn't work, and Bill and
Charlie don't contribute monetarily to the family. 

Julie 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]