Molly, and why I dislike her
Mar. 18th, 2005 07:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
donnaimmaculataAll this nightmare scenario-related talk about Molly and my dislike of her, in combination with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
camillabloom's delightfully filthy and squicky Molly/Sirius rape fic, and with sistermagpie's discussion of the Weasley twins and casual cruelty in HP made me think that time is right for explaining why, exactly, I don't like Molly. It's not, as one could assume, because she was "nasty to Sirius" in OotP (although this is one of the factors). It is because Molly represents exactly the image of motherhood that makes my hair stand up and my insides squirm with disgust and annoyance.
I know she's got her reasons for being protective. She is also widely considered a "strong" mother figure and her love for her family is often used as an explanation for her behaviour. But love can go horribly wrong and loving someone does not make us infallible.
Molly is a strong mother.
Let's see. In almost every book of the series there is a scene with Molly shouting at her children. In OotP, she shouts constantly.ivyblossom posted an essay once on Molly and the constant Howlers, in which she argues that yelling is a form of violence and quotes an article saying that children exposed to yelling and belittling from their parents are more likely to encounter problems with drugs, self-esteem, and suicide as teens than do children who were beaten. I am no expert on sociology and can't judge on how true this is, but it is certainly an interesting point.
However, I was a child once, and I do occasionally see parents and children interact. I grew up with an overprotective and loud mother (though not nearly as annoying one as Molly) and a laid-back, quiet father, and I always, always felt more respect for my father than for my mother (in arguments; I'm not talking about respect in general). While my mother would constantly nag and raise her voice to make a point, it got old after a while and could be easily ignored. My father would argue quietly, but if he raised his voice on occasion, I could not but obey him. His anger, because rare, was impossible to ignore.
A typical encounter from my every-day life: parents with small children in a supermarket. There are those who, when their kids throw a temper tantrum, start shouting back, dragging the children behind them through the shop and generally making a great spectacle of themselves, without achieving any satisfactory results and giving a highly negative impression of parenting. But there are also those who, when their kids throw a temper tantrum, get at eye-level with the kid and talk to them without raising their voice, have better chances to succeed shutting up their kids and instantly gain my respect. Molly clearly belongs to the first group.
Molly is a loud mother and an interfering mother, but she has no influence on her children. This is something that often gets overlooked: Molly's attempts to make her children obey are ignored; instead of listening to what their mother says, considering it as worthy their attention and taking it as guidelines, the younger children do what they want behind her back and their only fear is that they might be caught and get shouted at. Fred and George don't care at all for anything their mother says and Ginny turns into a very talented, straight-faced liar (which is a trait I cannot but admire, but I doubt this was Molly's goal). They don't stop to think that maybe Molly is right and that what they are about to do is questionable. Molly has no respect for her children and she is not respected by them. At all. She's unable to communicate her wishes to them in a manner they understand and are willing to listen to. How does that make her a strong mother?
Molly loves her children very much
Ah, how many crimes have been committed in the name of love? All right, so she does love her children. But so do Petunia and Vernon Dursley, and can they be considered good parents? The damage they've inflicted on Dudley by spoiling him, overfeeding him and turning him into a bully is at least as considerable as the damage they've inflicted on Harry.
Molly might love her children very much, but she does not regard them as individuals with different predispositions and different needs. There is an excellent essay on Molly, which argues that she doesn't treat her children like people but as colonies. I couldn't agree more.
Molly has a certain image of how her dream child is supposed to be and she tries with all her might to turn all her children into that dream child. What she wanted until OotP was a litter of little Percies. Now, she'd probably prefer little Bills with Percy's looks and occupation. When we first encounter Ron in PS, he says that all his brothers have achieved something outstanding, and that he is expected to do just as well; but if he does, it's no big deal, because they've done it before. I contribute a major part of this conditioning to Molly, as she is the only one in the family whom we see constantly nagging her children about their (future) careers. Also, the scene where Ron gets his prefect badge is rather telling in that respect.
Obviously, she has conditioned her children from their early infancy (Ron is eleven when the conviction that he must "do well" is so deeply rooted that it is one of the first things he ever voices in conversation with a new acquaintance) to perform in accordance with her wishes. This is not a rare trait in a parent. However: Molly doesn't want the children to do well in the field they're gifted at. She wants them to do well in the field she chooses for them.
As much as I dislike Fred and George - these boys are clearly talented. They are imaginative, creative, dynamic, magically powerful, outgoing... They spend their time inventing new magical devices, the use of which is questionable. But it is the task of a parent to recognise their children's individual skills and prod them in the right direction. Instead of saying, "Oh, all right, Fred and George are neither bookish nor have they any love for bureaucracy, but they are interested in inventing new spells and gimmicks, clearly an office job is not the right thing for them, let's think of something that'll suit them" Molly tries to exorcise their abilities out of them (by shouting particularly loudly) and infuse them with skills they don't have. I fail to see how this is a sign of love or support.
And there's more. In CoS, after the twins and Ron have rescued Harry from the Dursleys (doing it against their mother's wish and only worrying that they might be caught, not that they were doing something wrong, forbidden or dangerous), Molly corners them in the garden and - surprise - starts shouting. Her tirade starts with "I was worried, you could have died", but it soon drifts towards "You could have lost your father his job". There is also the obligatory reference to the elder brothers, whose exact copies the younger ones are supposed to turn into.
The worst thing about it, however, is that after shouting at her own sons, Molly turns to Harry saying that she doesn't blame him. It makes sense insofar as that Harry isn't to blame in that particular scene, but it is not the thing to do if you're a mother. She could have well ignored Harry entirely, but she decided to emphasise how much more satisfactory a child he is than her own sons. Ron is a truly loyal friend if he doesn't resent this. Apart from having to live up to his brothers' achievements, he now has to also compete in his mother's affection against his best friend.
In the same book, Ron and Harry get in danger again when they take the car to fly to Hogwarts, and Molly sends a Howler. In the Howler again she addresses Ron almost exclusively; Harry is mentioned only in passing. I have also another problem with Molly's Howler here: Call me naïve, but I think that while parents are entitled to react angrily if their children get themselves into some stupid scrapes, they should show concern and support if the children are in mortal danger - even if it's their own fault. Ron was undeniably in mortal danger here, but Molly shows no concern whatsoever. The Howler is her only means of acknowledging that he flew the car, and a Howler is not exactly best suited for telling her son that she was worried about him. Again, I get no love vibes here.
Speaking of the Howler: I have a particular aversion against people who drag their private issues into public and provoke loud arguments in front of innocent bystanders. It is embarrassing and vulgar, and Molly apparently loves doing it, if her attack on Arthur after he got stitched at St. Mungo's is any indication. Somehow, I don't get the impression that she showed him her love and her concern for him. She probably spent the hours at St. Mungo's the night when he was injured with telling him off for having been so foolhardy.
Molly is a caring woman who wants to protect those she loves
Molly's concept of protecting her children consists mainly in keeping them in the dark and completely ignoring the fact that they are growing up and that they are thinking individuals. In PoA she wants to keep Arthur from warning Harry about Sirius Black, even though Arthur points out - very rightly so - that Harry and Ron are adventurous and keep wandering around and that they ended up in the Forbidden Forest twice. Molly ignores the obvious truth valiantly. She does exactly the same in OotP when she tries to prevent Harry's hearing about Voldemort. Sending Ginny up to bed is either an act of blatant stupidity, if she does not realise that the others will tell Ginny everything as soon as Molly turns her back on them, or an act of childish petulance, if she wants to prove her authority by sending at least one child out of the room. Besides, her attitude reminds me of something: As long as our children are not told about sex, there will be no unwanted teenage pregnancies nor spreading STDs. Yeah, right.
Molly is right in mistrusting Sirius's abilities as godfather
Sirius is by no means a saint. But what he does and what Molly does not it realising that in Harry & Co. he is dealing with people who think and draw conclusions on their own. Molly seems to think that as long as the adults don't spell it out for them, Harry, Ron and the others will not realise that there is something going on that affects them.
That infamous discussion in OotP cemented my dislike for Molly like anything. Ascamillabloom said, Molly's attack on Sirius ("it's been rather difficult for you to look after him while you've been locked up in Azkaban") is unprovoked - Sirius merely stated that Harry's got him, which is an undeniable fact - it doesn't serve to bring a point across and it is merely designed to hurt Sirius as much as possible. Which shows what Molly's discussion tactics is all about: If running out of arguments, land as low a blow as possible.
Regardless whether she is right or not, I find this form of attack particularly disgusting. It's like telling a man whose family was killed in a road accident, "Well, you had to drive the car in front of the truck," or a woman who has been beaten by her husband, "It's your own fault, you always preferred muscles to brain". It might be true, but it doesn't make the "argument" less despicable.
In OotP we also learn via Molly that Sirius thinks he's got his best friend back in Harry. I find this a bit rich coming from a woman who is unable to realise that her own children are all individuals and who tries to mould them according to her concept of the "perfect child" rather than supporting them in who they are.
camillabloom's delightfully filthy and squicky Molly/Sirius rape fic, and with sistermagpie's discussion of the Weasley twins and casual cruelty in HP made me think that time is right for explaining why, exactly, I don't like Molly. It's not, as one could assume, because she was "nasty to Sirius" in OotP (although this is one of the factors). It is because Molly represents exactly the image of motherhood that makes my hair stand up and my insides squirm with disgust and annoyance.I know she's got her reasons for being protective. She is also widely considered a "strong" mother figure and her love for her family is often used as an explanation for her behaviour. But love can go horribly wrong and loving someone does not make us infallible.
Molly is a strong mother.
Let's see. In almost every book of the series there is a scene with Molly shouting at her children. In OotP, she shouts constantly.
ivyblossom posted an essay once on Molly and the constant Howlers, in which she argues that yelling is a form of violence and quotes an article saying that children exposed to yelling and belittling from their parents are more likely to encounter problems with drugs, self-esteem, and suicide as teens than do children who were beaten. I am no expert on sociology and can't judge on how true this is, but it is certainly an interesting point.However, I was a child once, and I do occasionally see parents and children interact. I grew up with an overprotective and loud mother (though not nearly as annoying one as Molly) and a laid-back, quiet father, and I always, always felt more respect for my father than for my mother (in arguments; I'm not talking about respect in general). While my mother would constantly nag and raise her voice to make a point, it got old after a while and could be easily ignored. My father would argue quietly, but if he raised his voice on occasion, I could not but obey him. His anger, because rare, was impossible to ignore.
A typical encounter from my every-day life: parents with small children in a supermarket. There are those who, when their kids throw a temper tantrum, start shouting back, dragging the children behind them through the shop and generally making a great spectacle of themselves, without achieving any satisfactory results and giving a highly negative impression of parenting. But there are also those who, when their kids throw a temper tantrum, get at eye-level with the kid and talk to them without raising their voice, have better chances to succeed shutting up their kids and instantly gain my respect. Molly clearly belongs to the first group.
Molly is a loud mother and an interfering mother, but she has no influence on her children. This is something that often gets overlooked: Molly's attempts to make her children obey are ignored; instead of listening to what their mother says, considering it as worthy their attention and taking it as guidelines, the younger children do what they want behind her back and their only fear is that they might be caught and get shouted at. Fred and George don't care at all for anything their mother says and Ginny turns into a very talented, straight-faced liar (which is a trait I cannot but admire, but I doubt this was Molly's goal). They don't stop to think that maybe Molly is right and that what they are about to do is questionable. Molly has no respect for her children and she is not respected by them. At all. She's unable to communicate her wishes to them in a manner they understand and are willing to listen to. How does that make her a strong mother?
Molly loves her children very much
Ah, how many crimes have been committed in the name of love? All right, so she does love her children. But so do Petunia and Vernon Dursley, and can they be considered good parents? The damage they've inflicted on Dudley by spoiling him, overfeeding him and turning him into a bully is at least as considerable as the damage they've inflicted on Harry.
Molly might love her children very much, but she does not regard them as individuals with different predispositions and different needs. There is an excellent essay on Molly, which argues that she doesn't treat her children like people but as colonies. I couldn't agree more.
Molly has a certain image of how her dream child is supposed to be and she tries with all her might to turn all her children into that dream child. What she wanted until OotP was a litter of little Percies. Now, she'd probably prefer little Bills with Percy's looks and occupation. When we first encounter Ron in PS, he says that all his brothers have achieved something outstanding, and that he is expected to do just as well; but if he does, it's no big deal, because they've done it before. I contribute a major part of this conditioning to Molly, as she is the only one in the family whom we see constantly nagging her children about their (future) careers. Also, the scene where Ron gets his prefect badge is rather telling in that respect.
Obviously, she has conditioned her children from their early infancy (Ron is eleven when the conviction that he must "do well" is so deeply rooted that it is one of the first things he ever voices in conversation with a new acquaintance) to perform in accordance with her wishes. This is not a rare trait in a parent. However: Molly doesn't want the children to do well in the field they're gifted at. She wants them to do well in the field she chooses for them.
As much as I dislike Fred and George - these boys are clearly talented. They are imaginative, creative, dynamic, magically powerful, outgoing... They spend their time inventing new magical devices, the use of which is questionable. But it is the task of a parent to recognise their children's individual skills and prod them in the right direction. Instead of saying, "Oh, all right, Fred and George are neither bookish nor have they any love for bureaucracy, but they are interested in inventing new spells and gimmicks, clearly an office job is not the right thing for them, let's think of something that'll suit them" Molly tries to exorcise their abilities out of them (by shouting particularly loudly) and infuse them with skills they don't have. I fail to see how this is a sign of love or support.
And there's more. In CoS, after the twins and Ron have rescued Harry from the Dursleys (doing it against their mother's wish and only worrying that they might be caught, not that they were doing something wrong, forbidden or dangerous), Molly corners them in the garden and - surprise - starts shouting. Her tirade starts with "I was worried, you could have died", but it soon drifts towards "You could have lost your father his job". There is also the obligatory reference to the elder brothers, whose exact copies the younger ones are supposed to turn into.
The worst thing about it, however, is that after shouting at her own sons, Molly turns to Harry saying that she doesn't blame him. It makes sense insofar as that Harry isn't to blame in that particular scene, but it is not the thing to do if you're a mother. She could have well ignored Harry entirely, but she decided to emphasise how much more satisfactory a child he is than her own sons. Ron is a truly loyal friend if he doesn't resent this. Apart from having to live up to his brothers' achievements, he now has to also compete in his mother's affection against his best friend.
In the same book, Ron and Harry get in danger again when they take the car to fly to Hogwarts, and Molly sends a Howler. In the Howler again she addresses Ron almost exclusively; Harry is mentioned only in passing. I have also another problem with Molly's Howler here: Call me naïve, but I think that while parents are entitled to react angrily if their children get themselves into some stupid scrapes, they should show concern and support if the children are in mortal danger - even if it's their own fault. Ron was undeniably in mortal danger here, but Molly shows no concern whatsoever. The Howler is her only means of acknowledging that he flew the car, and a Howler is not exactly best suited for telling her son that she was worried about him. Again, I get no love vibes here.
Speaking of the Howler: I have a particular aversion against people who drag their private issues into public and provoke loud arguments in front of innocent bystanders. It is embarrassing and vulgar, and Molly apparently loves doing it, if her attack on Arthur after he got stitched at St. Mungo's is any indication. Somehow, I don't get the impression that she showed him her love and her concern for him. She probably spent the hours at St. Mungo's the night when he was injured with telling him off for having been so foolhardy.
Molly is a caring woman who wants to protect those she loves
Molly's concept of protecting her children consists mainly in keeping them in the dark and completely ignoring the fact that they are growing up and that they are thinking individuals. In PoA she wants to keep Arthur from warning Harry about Sirius Black, even though Arthur points out - very rightly so - that Harry and Ron are adventurous and keep wandering around and that they ended up in the Forbidden Forest twice. Molly ignores the obvious truth valiantly. She does exactly the same in OotP when she tries to prevent Harry's hearing about Voldemort. Sending Ginny up to bed is either an act of blatant stupidity, if she does not realise that the others will tell Ginny everything as soon as Molly turns her back on them, or an act of childish petulance, if she wants to prove her authority by sending at least one child out of the room. Besides, her attitude reminds me of something: As long as our children are not told about sex, there will be no unwanted teenage pregnancies nor spreading STDs. Yeah, right.
Molly is right in mistrusting Sirius's abilities as godfather
Sirius is by no means a saint. But what he does and what Molly does not it realising that in Harry & Co. he is dealing with people who think and draw conclusions on their own. Molly seems to think that as long as the adults don't spell it out for them, Harry, Ron and the others will not realise that there is something going on that affects them.
That infamous discussion in OotP cemented my dislike for Molly like anything. As
camillabloom said, Molly's attack on Sirius ("it's been rather difficult for you to look after him while you've been locked up in Azkaban") is unprovoked - Sirius merely stated that Harry's got him, which is an undeniable fact - it doesn't serve to bring a point across and it is merely designed to hurt Sirius as much as possible. Which shows what Molly's discussion tactics is all about: If running out of arguments, land as low a blow as possible.Regardless whether she is right or not, I find this form of attack particularly disgusting. It's like telling a man whose family was killed in a road accident, "Well, you had to drive the car in front of the truck," or a woman who has been beaten by her husband, "It's your own fault, you always preferred muscles to brain". It might be true, but it doesn't make the "argument" less despicable.
In OotP we also learn via Molly that Sirius thinks he's got his best friend back in Harry. I find this a bit rich coming from a woman who is unable to realise that her own children are all individuals and who tries to mould them according to her concept of the "perfect child" rather than supporting them in who they are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 10:40 am (UTC)I honestly don't know if JKR expects us to respond favorably to Molly
Funny, I always had the feeling that Molly was rather liked. Not madly loved, but considered a good person and a decent mother. I've no idea whether my impression is at all correct, though.
I think being a good mother is the toughest job ever and I can understand women who aren't up to it. But if a woman decides to have seven children, she should be prepared to support and advise them the best even if they don't turn out the way she was hoping for.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 11:33 am (UTC)This is a wonderful essay. As a mother, I'm not above yelling and screaming, but I'm well aware that it's a last resort evern (crossing the street without looking comes to mind). Molly seems to see her children as infants that can be coaxed into doing what she wants. She hasn't learned that they are adults with their own personalities.