Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
Why doesn't Molly have a job?
date
newest »
newest »
Jocelyn wrote: "Well, of course they have their fair share of problems. No family is totally perfect. What I mean by "happy" is that they're not horribly unsatisfied with their life. More like "not upset at their lifestyle" than "happy." They love each other as a family, and since love is a major theme in HP, that is SOMETHING I would call happy. Just one aspect of their lives, not all. "Since we're talking specifically about the fincancial problems, I used the word 'happy' to mean happy with one's financial situation, not all aspects of life. I'm not saying that people need money to be happy, I'm saying that the Weasleys do not have the amount of money that they want or need, and they are not happy about that specific aspect of their lives. Whether or not they love each other doesn't change that.
cuz she's the mom n a minor character
Okay then someone come up with an example for me where we are given a situation where the Weasleys needed something or were completely going without. Wanting fancier robes is not an example. It has to be something for a basic human need that they were without not a material want. Wants and needs are very separate things.
Mitali wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Well, of course they have their fair share of problems. No family is totally perfect. What I mean by "happy" is that they're not horribly unsatisfied with their life. More like "not..."
They do have everything they need. Barely, but they still do. Like Gretchen said, wants and needs are very separate things. Hand-me-downs still fulfill their needs. Needs.
As for wants, yes, they still have a lot they want but don't have. But they just deal with it. They don't have anything like real, emergency cravings or anything. In my eyes, they're quite happy, and whenever they're not, they do their best to be happy. Rowling never meant to portray them as UNhappy, right? Not to say that that immediately makes them happy, but they certainly aren't unhappy. Rowling would have exaggerated their "destitution" for lack of a better word, to a far greater degree if she meant to depict them as an unhappy family.
They do have everything they need. Barely, but they still do. Like Gretchen said, wants and needs are very separate things. Hand-me-downs still fulfill their needs. Needs.
As for wants, yes, they still have a lot they want but don't have. But they just deal with it. They don't have anything like real, emergency cravings or anything. In my eyes, they're quite happy, and whenever they're not, they do their best to be happy. Rowling never meant to portray them as UNhappy, right? Not to say that that immediately makes them happy, but they certainly aren't unhappy. Rowling would have exaggerated their "destitution" for lack of a better word, to a far greater degree if she meant to depict them as an unhappy family.
Jocelyn wrote: "Mitali wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Well, of course they have their fair share of problems. No family is totally perfect. What I mean by "happy" is that they're not horribly unsatisfied with their life...."Gretchen wrote: "Okay then someone come up with an example for me where we are given a situation where the Weasleys needed something or were completely going without. Wanting fancier robes is not an example. It has..."
How about this: In CoS, the Weasleys have only one galleon in the bank. They have to buy 5 sets of school books for their kids (expensive books, at that - they say so). Ginny needs a wand, which costs at least 10 galleons. We don't even know where the Weasleys managed to scrape together the money for that. Ron too needs a new wand once his breaks, though he doesn't tell his parents that he needs one. He spends the whole year using a seriously malfunctioning wand, and gets a new one only after his family wins the lottery. These are serious needs, and it's clear that Rowling is portraying the Weasleys as barely scraping by. I'm not sure how much she could have 'exaggerated their "destitution"' without writing 'The Weasleys need money' in flashing neon letters in the book.
You're right, Mitali, now that you point their "destitution" out. Honestly though, I really doubt that it matters. Is this simply to point out the plot hole of Molly not having a job?
Do you think that they're necessarily UNhappy, though? Now that you've pointed it out, I don't think they're totally happy, but it's not like some kind of dark, desolate lifestyle where they have to resort to begging on the streets or anything.
Do you think that they're necessarily UNhappy, though? Now that you've pointed it out, I don't think they're totally happy, but it's not like some kind of dark, desolate lifestyle where they have to resort to begging on the streets or anything.
Jocelyn wrote: "You're right, Mitali, now that you point their "destitution" out. Honestly though, I really doubt that it matters. Is this simply to point out the plot hole of Molly not having a job?Do you think..."
I think the children really do sort of suffer in silence about it. There is a grim sort of maturity we see in each of the Weasley kids, hijinx aside.
As you said the house is full of love and the kids are all well-adjusted and intelligent and cared for but it seems that when a child as young as 12 is filtering what they tell their parents to protect them there might be something a little disfunctional going on. Sure Ron is probably not telling them partially to avoid getting in trouble and I bet that's how he'd say it to his friends, but I think we both know Ron really didn't tell them because he knew they couldn't afford it.
Samantha wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "You're right, Mitali, now that you point their "destitution" out. Honestly though, I really doubt that it matters. Is this simply to point out the plot hole of Molly not having a jo..."I just have to say Ron did not tell them about his wand because, how did he break it, The Whomping Willow and the tree and enchanted car which already cost his parents 50 Galleons. Like he is going to bring up something else.
Also Mitalia your point about their account is valid, however, they are still making money correct? Most people do live like that. With just a little bit extra in the bank all the while bringing in a regular income to pay the bills. The kids did get everything they needed right? With the exception of Ron who broke his wand and did not tell them. The question was again not what did they struggle for but what did they not get that they needed.
Joanne wrote: "First, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being a housewife. That IS a job in itself. And the previous messenger was correct -- the Weaselys were not poor just very low income.
I would als..."
Dead right! In fact Molly had a harder job than her husband, and was big enough to both do that job and realise the importance of it.
A more unequal relationship was Mr and Mrs Dursley, but I think they were deliberately made into a "stereotype".
I would als..."
Dead right! In fact Molly had a harder job than her husband, and was big enough to both do that job and realise the importance of it.
A more unequal relationship was Mr and Mrs Dursley, but I think they were deliberately made into a "stereotype".
Old topic is old, but I just had to say this.I don't think Molly not having a job is what rubs me the wrong way...as much as the question; 'When, exactly, did the Weaseleys finally realize they were too poor to have another child?'
I mean, seriously. Unless Molly or Arthur were at some point well off, and lost everything, (which is never hinted at), it made no sense to have any more children after the twins. None. Zero. Nope, nothing. I can't think of a single reason beyond 'accident'.
It just bugs me, because someone like Molly especially should have known better. And if nothing else, Ginny should never have been born. She came 1 year after Ron, at which point they must have realized they were in no position for another kid. Yet, Ginny lives. Why? You can see your children are bullied and struggling, for no other reason than your constant breeding.
If the Weaseleys had stopped at Charlie, or at least the twins, they'd be living a pretty nice life. But since three more came along, whoop, there it is. Near poverty. No, they're not unhappy, yes Jo needed them for the plot, but logically, it fails all over. At least to me.
Sapphire wrote: "Old topic is old, but I just had to say this.I don't think Molly not having a job is what rubs me the wrong way...as much as the question; 'When, exactly, did the Weaseleys finally realize they w..."
How on earth is this illogical? Surely you are aware that in real life there are millions (if not billions) of people who have more children than they can afford. People have kids for plenty of reasons, most of them social and emotional, not financial.
These books take a very traditional, we may think old-fashion, view to women. The women that worked were not married and the women who were married did not work. Think about the women that worked; the teachers at Hogwarts for example, none of them were married - giving the old notion of a school marm that gave up or didn't want marriage to teach.Lily Potter didn't work, Narcissa Malfoy didn't work, even Bellatrix didn't work. They are married women. Their job was to be at home. That's the way it was.
Gretchen wrote: "Remember this though in the end that it was the mom in the kitchen who kicked Bellatrix Lestrange's arse.":D Exactly!
Libbie wrote: "Lindsay wrote: "Full time mom isn't a job?"THANK YOU.
I was just coming on this thread to say that. Just because you don't get a paycheck, doesn't mean it's not WORK."
Right. :)
Why does Molly need a job? She raised 7 children and is badass with or without a job.
well she had to raise 7 kids...and i don't think Arthur was that efficient with house work...besides some mothers are satisfied with being a full-time housewife,...and she was the quintessential house mum
And after all, being a mom is a full-time job in and of itself. It isn't sitting behind a desk or being in the public eye, but it is just as important. :) I admire Molly for what she did for her children. :)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Good point. But I think in the long run, as her kids grow up, she'll make a profit from it, since in time they won't need day care.
Or are there any unnamed magic spells for day care? That would be pretty cool.