The CBB :: View topic - Themes: Childrearing Practices

through

[^/[^Print]\]

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

#1: Themes: Childrearing Practices Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:26 pm
—
As suggested by Maeve.

What are your opinions of childrearing and parenting practices in EBD's books? Was her idea of 'instant obedience' realistic? And why was 'instant obedience' confined to continental children? Was the idea of healthy mischief confined to English girls only? Who did EBD have down as a Good Parent and who as a Bad Parent, and do we ever agree with her in this sense?!

Children in EBD's world were often parentless, and the school replaced their family. What do you think of Miss Annersley (or indeed any of the staff) as a mother-figure? Did Joey Maynard really stand in for a parent to the girls at school in Switzerland?

Anything else you'd like to talk about in this topic, please do go ahead and join in below Very Happy

#2: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:33 am
—
I sometimes wonder if her fondness for 'instant, unquestioning obedience' is wishful thinking on the part of a frustrated teacher... It's also interesting that her central character, Joey, is *not* one who could ever be accused of excessive obedience. I think it is over idealised in the case of continental girls, possibly because she had only seen the continental girls on their best behaviour, as opposed to actually teaching English girls.

There are some aspects of ideal child raising as seen in the Chalet series that I find rather disturbing. The airy assurances that having a big family is better for everyone, that ignores the practical realities of feeding, clothing and housing 11 children, educating them, having hired help to take care of them, and the physical toll of repeated pregnancies on the mother. The tendency to label a child early in life, and keep them to that label (Margot, Mike and Sybil and bad, Len and Peggy are excessively good and responsible, Maeve and Ailie are featherheads, Josette and Bride are the brains). Punishing a child for misbehaviour via shunning, until the child is making themselves ill with the stress of it. Joey's determination to be a best friend to her children combined with her determination to remain a schoolgirl.

EBD definitely doesn't agree with a lot of the more eccentric or old fashioned childrearing practices seen - like Eustacia, or Polly Heriot, and is definitely in favour of stricter parenting, rather than spoiling the child (like Emerence, or Lavender).

One thing I find odd, which is at least partly historical, is the way children are expected to maintain a deep, genuine emotional connection with someone they don't actually remember. Many of the girls encounter parents that they haven't seen since they were toddlers - Bride and the younger Bettanys, Prunella Davidson, Verity Carey, Carola Johnstone, and they all seem to have an instant attachment to the parents when they do encounter them as teenagers.

#3: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:14 am
—
I find that the "unquestioning obedience" gets a bit much. Whilst there are some kids I know who speak to parents/teachers/other adults in a way I'd never have dreamt of doing - and Joey is my grandparents' generation - so in some ways I think there's something to be said for obedience Wink

, I find it quite disturbing e.g. in Head Girl when some of the girls say that they think Grizel should study music because it's what her father wants, even though it's not what she wants.

Joey's attitude about big families being best really winds me up, e.g. when she tells Samaris that her parents should have had more children, and her remarks to Simone in Joey Goes. Does it never occur to her that some people would love to have children/more children but can't because of medical reasons, financial reasons or personal circumstances? Big families have advantages but so do small families ... but maybe EBD had some sort of idealised picture of big families because of her own background - brother died young, didn't know her half-brothers, parents splitting up, etc - and that explains her "big families are best" idea. The same could even be said about Joey, who never knew her parents and was so much younger than Madge and Dick that she must sometimes have felt like an only child.

A lot of families "label" children so, although I don't think it's right, I don't find it strange; and at that time and with people of that class a lot of children would have gone for years without seeing parents who were working in other parts of the Empire so again I don't find that strange ... although it must have been weird for the Bettanys and the others to get used to living with their parents after so many years apart.

What do people think about views in the CS books to the age-old question of whether or not bad behaviour in children is the fault of the parents? The attitude seems to be that the parents are to blame unless the kids in question are Sybil Russell or Mike or Margot Maynard!

#4: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:16 am
—

Quote:

One thing I find odd... is the way children are expected to maintain a deep, genuine emotional connection with someone they don't actually remember. Many of the girls encounter parents that they haven't seen since they were toddlers - Bride and the younger Bettanys, Prunella Davidson, Verity Carey, Carola Johnstone, and they all seem to have an instant attachment to the parents when they do encounter them as teenagers.

The Bettanys are the only family we know much about, and we do see that Mollie writes long, affectionate letters to Peggy and Bride, and Madge would talk to them about Dick. Even so, it takes them a while to settle down together as a family - Maeve resents Peggy acting the older sister over her and Bride has to try to keep the peace.

I don't think Prunella and Carola have the same warm feelings towards their parents. Prunella acts up when her parents come home, and Carola doesn't feel able to write to her parents about wanting to go to school - even though she would probably have got what she wanted. I can't imagine Peggy or Bride being that reserved towards their parents.

On another topic, I don't think 'instant and unquestioning obedience' is realistic, where toddlers are concerned, or even necessarily desirable, for older children/teenagers. Children need to learn to exercise their own judgement, so that they can grow up to be 'strong, helpful women' - or men.

#5: Author: Travellers Joy, Location: Middle of Nowhere

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:23 am
—

JayB wrote:

On another topic, I don't think 'instant and unquestioning obedience' is realistic, where toddlers are concerned, or even necessarily desirable, for older children/teenagers. Children need to learn to exercise their own judgement, so that they can grow up to be 'strong, helpful women' - or men.

Besides, expecting and getting are two very different things, in my experience! (Unless you want to beat the kids into submission but I do draw the line at that!! Shocked

)

#6: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:04 pm
—
I, too, have my doubts, serious ones, about the immediate and unquestioning obedience. I don't think it's possible, and certainly don't think it's advisable for small children to obey any adult instantly. Children have to learn to cope with their own world, and that means testing things for themselves. Certainly, I don't find either the Russells or the Maynards to be particularly good parents.

With the Russells, it was necessity, they had to take the children in, especially Daisy and Primula, though I still have my doubts about the wisdom of leaving very small children in a strange environment, as the Bettanys did, for all those years.

What did seem to happen was that the Russell children seemed to become alienated from their parents, and they showed very little understanding of them. And the way Madge and Jem allowed Jo to influence them was appalling.

As far as the Maynards are concerned, I think their long family was dreadful in many ways. I can't honestly see Jo having so many children if she'd had to cope alone with them all, and as it was, she put far too much responsibility on the oldest children, gave them all labels, and spent far too much time on interfering in school matters. In reality, it would have been hideously embarrassing for the triplets whenever their mother came over to the school to be 'best friends' with the girls.

Another point I want to make is this: why do so many of us write drabbles in which Jo is lampooned/ shown as an interfering harridan/definitely nasty, if we don't see her that way?

Answers on a postcard, please.

#7: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:42 pm
—

Quote:

In reality, it would have been hideously embarrassing for the triplets whenever their mother came over to the school to be 'best friends' with the girls.

It also meant they had no chance to develop their own identities away from her. Children, especially teenagers, need space to do that. The triplets did nothing, went nowhere and knew no-one that Jo didn't know about. Len couldn't even try a ponytail without having to ask Jo.

(And having your sisters always with you in class wouldn't help, either. At least Matey always put them in different dormies, so they had that small space away from each other.)

#8: Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:26 am
—
There are so many different parenting styles in EBD that it's hard to know which to consider the author's "ideal." We get some ideas of what she particularly disliked in her succession of problematic parents and guardians: "old-fashioned" education, alternating indulgence and repression, the extreme self-expression variant of Mrs. Pertwee, parents more interested in social life or career than children. I get the impression that, with both Jo and the school authorities, EBD is trying hard to blend traditional values (no corrupting the young!) with a more modern approach.

The "instant obedience" target isn't something that's new with EBD. For example, in Louisa May Alcott's Under the Lilacs, we read that "Ben had been taught instant obedience to those older than himself." – despite being raised in a circus! The idea that obedience should be a primary goal of children was still so strong when I was growing up that the local nuns unilaterally inserted "especially for disobedience" into the Act of Contrition. However, EBD makes it clear that we're not talking obedience for obedience's sake, a la Elsie. She tries to have her characters explain the reasons for rules, and warns that a child may come to grief if she/he doesn't trust the elders enough to obey before asking why. Also, it wouldn't be fair to rank obedience as the only standard promoted. Certainly caring, generosity, helpfulness and responsibility are way up there, complete with evidence that these aren't particularly easy virtues to accommodate. EBD also wants to show that none of this requires heavy or overbearing parenting. Instead, she tries to portray her favorite authority figures as fun-loving and young at heart.

Of course, EBD is well aware that humans don't always live up to their lofty standards. (Jack's temper, anyone? Rolling Eyes

) She needs to deal both with reality and with the "Davy factor." (From L.M. Montgomery: Anne's perception that mischievous Davy is more engaging than boringly obedient Dora) Eleven perfect children just wouldn't cut it! Even if you ignore the need for plot elements, I think it highly unlikely that one would encounter RL families without some members more prone to trouble than others.

Quote:

why do so many of us write drabbles in which Jo is lampooned/ shown as an interfering harridan/definitely nasty, if we don't see her that way?

I think that, if most of us found Joey such an objectionable character, there would be no Chalet School fans!

1. Poking fun is amusing, now and then.
2. Plot typically requires resolution of a conflict, and EBD is such an inveterate reformer of characters that obvious villains are in short supply.
3. The Forces of Evil have been collaborating to insinuate evil-Joey-caricatures and their ilk into the CBB unconscious.

#9: Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:25 am
—
I find that whan I read the books I do the same as anyone else and completely fall into the mind-set that EBD's view of Joey and the Maynards is an almost idealised version of childhood and good parents. It's only when I come out of the books that I reconsider.

I know there are many different styles shown but think that the Maynard style has got to be EBD's ideal, or close to it as this is the family we see most of. Yet the Maynard style has many faults within it - Joey Maynard was labelling her children when they were only days old - and her ideas became fact. Near the end of Exile we are told that Len is a leader, Con dreamy and Margot naughty.

The fact that 'instant obedience' is not just EBD's idea doesn't make it any more likely - only that it seems obvious that many of those advocating it had never actually raised children! And, from our more jaundiced 21st century eyes, actually raising children to unquestioningly obey adults is fraught with danger.

#10: Author: Squirrel, Location: St-Andrews or Dunfermline

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:56 am
—
I guess it's the difference also between 'instant obedience' on every topic and at least enough obedience that your child does what they are told when it is important. The setting of boundaries for their safety kind of thing.

The sorts of examples you see in the books are Rolf and the road accident, and in Rescue where there is some kind of chat about kids and fire. These two things have to have the law laid down about them, cause if not, the child could be badly injured.

#11: Author: MaryR, Location: Cheshire

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:09 pm
—

Alison H wrote:

I find it quite disturbing e.g. in Head Girl when some of the girls say that they think Grizel should study music because it's what her father wants, even though it's not what she wants.

But that still carried over to the fifties and indeed some tried it even in the early Sixties. I had always wanted to be a teacher, but suddenly when I was about 16 I had second thoughts and sent off for nursing brochures. My mother went ballistic, and would, I am sure, have tried to force me to be a teacher if I hadn't realised eventually that my heart did still lie that way. An Irish Catholic background was a very controllong one. And with Grizel we're talking the Thirties, when parents certainly expected to rule the roost.

And as to Joey's long family, that was what Catholics were expected to have. The Church banned any form of contraception, and people on the whole didn't go in for rebelling against the Church back then. It was stiil the norm to have large Catholic families during my schooldays, and many of my friends came from long families, even longer than Joey's! Shocked

#12: Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:08 pm
—
Jo wasn't Irish Catholic though was she? The Catholic schools I went to in the 50s/60s were mainly 2/3 children.

#13: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:55 am
—

Mel wrote:

Jo wasn't Irish Catholic though was she? The Catholic schools I went to in the 50s/60s were mainly 2/3 children.

I don't think effective birth control was available until the late sixties, and was still very frowned apon for Catholics. Either they practised the rhythm method (was that officially allowed then?) or they slept in separate beds, or there were fertility problems.

I actually wonder how much fertility issues would affect things. There wasn't the medical technology and diagnostic tools that there are now for couples who want to have children but have trouble, and serious complications during a childbirth were more likely to cause trouble farther down the line, so it would be interesting to know what fraction of couples weren't particularly fertile.

-----

On the career note, even now parents can exert a fair amount of influence on their children's paths, even if it is much more accepted that a young adult should be making up their own minds - there are parents who will pay for university only if the kid goes in for a certain major, or who hassle their children about finding a spouse and getting married and producing grandchildren, and so on.

#14: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:37 pm
—
I think the whole Instant Obedience is a very interesting topic. I’m going to defend the idea and say that I do think it’s important that children learn to obey their parents too a degree and I certainly knew as a child that I had to do as I was told; and if I didn’t it would be followed through. I’m not saying we were plaster saints but the last thing you want is to have to tell a child ten times to do something and then end up in an almighty row because they won’t. It just makes life hard work. I’m sure we’ve all seen a few kids on TV parenting programs who could have done with a bit of obedience training. Maybe I’ll reassess if and when I have a couple of kids to train! Certainly I wouldn’t disagree with EBD about the Hopes’ parenting skills.

As for the girls thinking Grizel should obey her father with respect to career choice it does seem a bit much that they don’t seem to want to take Grizel’s side – it’s not like she’s planning a career as anything terrible.

Having said that I wouldn’t expect any child to be instantly obedient all the time and I agree it wouldn’t be healthy. My parents were determined that we should be brought up to think for ourselves although there were times when the answer to our ‘Why?’ was ‘Because I say so’! I think it depends what it is the child is being asked to do. If it’s get away from the cliff edge it could be quite useful – unless you’re a single parent hoping to bag a doctor from the inevitable rescue.

In the Tyrol Instant Obedience seems to be used with respect to the continental girls as a contrast to Joey, it’s in later books that it starts to make less sense to me. And isn’t there a scene where a triplet (Margot?) is being disobedient and it is presented as the worst sin possible. I have to say I don’t get the idea behind disobedience being any special sort of sin.

I find the whole next generation quite hard to adapt to. There is a scene in the Tyrol where Jo is plotting to marry Natalie Mensch off to David Russell and they will both have been brought up so well and will be a perfect couple. And Jo is told she is being silly, which she is of course; but I have to admit that as a child I was quite seduced by the idea that Madge’s son would be perfect and she would be a perfect parent. And I remember being shocked that Joey could have a daughter who turned out a bad as Margot.

As for “Did Joey Maynard really stand in for a parent to the girls at school in Switzerland?” I’d like to think that she did. I quite buy the argument that hers was a pastoral role; she was someone the girls could go and talk to, who would be there for them.

As for labelling children

Lesley wrote:

Joey Maynard was labelling her children when they were only days old - and her ideas became fact.

Parents do do this and I’m not sure where you draw the line between recognising that children have different personalities and giving self-fulfilling labels. I think it’s worse when it’s a negative label and it’s not recognised when the child does change.

#15: Author: miss_maeve, Location: Buckinghamshire, UK

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:45 pm
—
I can't help but wonder whether the children at EBD's own school were obedient? And if they weren't, what did she do to remedy that fact?

#16: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:05 am
—

miss_maeve wrote:

I can't help but wonder whether the children at EBD's own school were obedient? And if they weren't, what did she do to remedy that fact?

Decided it was their parents' fault!

#17: Author: tiffinata, Location: melbourne, australia

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:55 pm
—
Perhaps the idea of instant obedience appears slightly extreme.
But if you look at time and culture of both the books and EBD's upbringing it may be in context.

There is a difference between instant obedience, unquestioning obedience and learned or conditioned obedience.

People did not question authority figures much. If you did, you may have been regarded having bolshie tendancies. (there's a quote somewhere)
The doctor was always right, if the King or Prime Minister sent the country off to war it was for the right reasons. Taking over of countries from the natives (and sometimes killing them) was for their own good. The army or the church were considered much more of a career and children were often destined for these even if they didn't want to.

Obey God's word....or else something might happen to you.
"Nanny says I must do what Mummy or Daddy say instantly" Otherwise said parent may think that hired help is not doing the job they are paid for. Pavlov's dog- the bell rings and the kiddies go to class.

Girls did have less freedom -except during the wars when they could do almost anything and it was regarded as helping the war effort (of course the payusually wasn't equal to mens)

Still today there are some cultures and countries where children are expected tohave instant or unquestioning obedience. Usually it is more so the girls and we often feel that they are archaic or have had their human rights violated. (Often they have)

Just wondering... (and completely not on this thread)
The chalet school tried to teach the girls that everyone was to be respected and no snobbery It didn't matter about your background.

Could it be infered from Joey's words to Rosamund that it didn't matter what her parentage was (gardener and lady's maid) that EBD might have had slightly socialist views or been influenced by what was happening politically in Britain at the time?
Around that time (1956) wasn't the British Labour Government creating the NHS, taking over the railways, coal mines, steel works etc. What year was it that the labour party won the election by an absolute landlide?

#18: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:00 pm
—

Quote:

What year was it that the labour party won the election by an absolute landslide?

1945. The Conservatives were re-elected in 1951 and stayed in office until 1964.

#19: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:34 pm
—
Coming very late to this topic. I agree with other commenters that EBD is as transitional in her representations of child-rearing as in her portrayal of women and careers - an interesting, if cautious, blend of traditional (not to say reactionary) and something we might recognise as modern. At times, Freudesheim appears an extremely modern home, with a dual-career set of parents and a set of biological and (loosely) adoptive children, while, at others, we see a much more early-twentieth-century upper-middle-class set-up, with the younger children making only intermittent appearances downstairs, and many of the more banal aspects of childcare mediated by a large staff and boarding school (albeit next door for the girls!)

The much earlier Jo to the Rescue, which I re-read recently, is interesting on childcare, as, Joey and Simone, Marie and Frieda being at their shared holiday home during the war, we see them isolated from both the school environment, and from their servants and nannies (although with poor Sybil as an almost-servant, much of the time, and several part-time chars and the assistance of Debby!) (Incidentally, I do think EBD is poor on small children, as her portrayal of the 'enchanting courtliness' of the very young triplets is very unlikely indeed. Rather like the impeccable manners, hand-kissing and instant obedience EBD liked so much in continental European children...)

On the one hand, the sheer involvement of Joey with her baby and the triplets, in every aspect of their physical and psychological existence, feels very modern - no Coadjutor etc here, and a lot of emphasis on bathing and dressing and feeding and amusing and teething - and the individual time she spends with each triplet before bedtime smacks of modern insistence on not lumping multiple births together en masse. On the other, Joey's attempts to keep Margot's temper tantrums from Jack, and his Paterfamilias Routine when Margot throws one on one of his visits, and the fact that the 'private time' with each child is in fact a prayer time in which the child 'confesses' their 'sins' to Joey and is forgiven, sounds astonishingly archaic, as does the oddly formal children's tea scene near the start of the novel. Joey has had to seek out Debby to show her the missing pre-ordered milk, and they enter the house to find the 'small folk' sitting 'solemnly' around a fully-laid table, although they've only just arrived at a strange place after a long journey!

I also think that in the CS series in general, EBD is trying to reconcile the different child-rearing practices of different classes into a slightly utopian whole. For instance, writing about an international boarding school means that most of her characters are necessarily upper-class and upper-middle class, for whom leaving children in a different country/on a different continent at school for long periods (while on colonial service, among other reasons) was entirely normal. We see this with Dick and Mollie Bettany, and lots of other characters - the American girls, Margia and Amy Stevens etc, and situations which to a modern reader seem very odd - like Carola Johnston's mother opting to remain in Africa with her father for years at a time, while their daughter was dragged about the world by an unwilling relative. However, EBD, probably due to her own pious Christianity and lower-middle (at best) class background, does not accept the somewhat semi-detached notions of family that this often entailed. Somewhat unrealistically, she insists on unproblematic love felt for parents and siblings who are hardly ever seen (again, Dick and Mollie's children, who stay in Europe while their parents return to India) and suggests that parent-child relationships are not altered at all by the fact that the children spend the vast majority of their time at school at a distance which precludes visiting home outside the school holidays.

I've always found it deeply strange that the triplets board at the school in Switzerland, while living next door! I know that some explanation about the bad winter weather is offered at one point, but surely the average snowfall isn't going to preclude going through a gate in a fence more than a few days a winter...?

#20: Author: Holly,

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:13 am
—

Sunglass wrote:

I've always found it deeply strange that the triplets board at the school in Switzerland, while living next door! I know that some explanation about the bad winter weather is offered at one point, but surely the average snowfall isn't going to preclude going through a gate in a fence more than a few days a winter...?

Maybe Joey wanted them to have the full Chalet School boarder experience, or maybe she was worried about the noise the smaller children would have made disturbing them when they were studying.

#21: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:23 am
—

Holly wrote:

Sunglass wrote:

Maybe Joey wanted them to have the full Chalet School boarder experience, or maybe she was worried about the noise the smaller children would have made disturbing them when they were studying.

Although at that point the CS was pretty much entirely a boarding school, unlike the early days. There are only day girls for special circumstances, like Sue Meadows with her cousin. By being day girls, they would miss out on many of the school activities, and be rather on the outskirts.

In the early Tyrol days they had a number of day girls, and even early in the war years they took day girls, but in St Briavals and Switzerland that changed quite a bit.

#22: Author: Rosalin, Location: Swansea

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:48 pm
—
I think the triplets would end up resenting being day girls because they'd miss so much. In the Tyrol it would have made sense for them not to board, but not in Switzerland. I'm not keen on some of Joey's parenting, but I think I agree with her on this.

#23: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:18 pm
—
I agree it made sense for them to board, they'd have missed out on so many things like the Hobbies Club and evening dancing and entertainments. And they wouldn't have been able to be dormy prees. Being day girls might have affected their chances of being prefects.

And since it apparently didn't cost anything to send them to the CS, it made good financial sense. Jo and Jack didn't have to pay for their keep at home during termtime, so they saved money by having them board. (They'd still have needed all the uniform etc as day girls.)

#24: Author: Lolly, Location: Back in London

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:12 am
—
One of the schools I boarded at (mid 90's) only took day pupils under certain circumstances - health or bad behaviour usually. We had a couple of people boarding in my year whose parents lived less than 5 miles away from the school (they were always sneaking off home to raid their parents drinks cupboards though) Very Happy

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1