The CBB :: View topic - trained to instant obedience

And I'm far from clear on how you would differentiate EBD-approved training to instant obedience from the kind of thing that made Grizel so cowed and unhappy?

Unquestioning obedience could just mean raising children so that if they are told: Sit down there and be quiet (in, say a doctors' waiting room) they will sit down and keep quiet - unlike the kids who rampage about the place / whinge about being bored.

I didn't realise that 'instant obedience' was more Victorian than it was 1920s or 30s. Can anyone recommend a book that was written before the CS (ie in the 1900s or 1890s) where it might really pop out?

The obsession with obedience in the Elsie books is scary and really quite horrible - Mr Dinsmore and Captain Raymond just freak me out with the way they try to cow their daughters into obeying their every word and not even thinking for themselves :twisted:

.

... Mr Dinsmore and Captain Raymond are (IMHO) vile.

Would medicine be the other one, Dawn? It wouldn't surprise me. How terrible that they might have so little choice. One wonders how many other professions have lost potentially world class people because of this.

In several of the earlier CS books, I think Madge mentions that there is an element about Jem that scares Joey completely so that she takes medicine, or behaves properly. I've always wondered what this element consists of, and what is said, I've always imagined that I would tend to buck my sister's husband's attempts at discipline...

'Then I will bring Jo here and say that you wish her to telephone you, and she will obey you as always.’
‘That’s all very well,’ sighed Madge Russell. ‘But Jo is grown up now, ridiculous as it seems, and I’m not her mother—only her sister [...] Mercifully, Jem will back me up, and she is afraid of annoying him. He can be nasty with her when he likes, fond as he is of her.’

Róisín wrote:

?The Elsie books

... more that she held him in awe being a stranger until she was 13 or so, whereas she probably knows how she can get around Madge, she doesn't so much with Jem, so when Jem says no you can't come back to a houseful of sick kids to get sick yourself, she'd listen more than her older sister. [I could see him being annoyed with Joey and being a lot more direct with her if Joey decides to ignore Jem which fair enough too, as Joey at times doesn't show a lot of commen sense.

admittedly it was Joey's own choice not to try to get a job, but a lot of single or widowed women at that time did for various reasons end up having to live with relatives and were vulnerable to being ordered about by an authoritarian head of the household because they had nowhere else to go.

We don't often see Jem with the children: I wonder what he was like with them. He and Madge were in a difficult position in many ways because they were looking after a lot of children to whom they weren't parents nor legal guardians. I can imagine Jem reprimanding Rix for some prank or other and Rix turning round and saying that he didn't have to obey Jem because Jem wasn't his father.

From Jem's attitude to training baby David in obedience, and forbidding Madge to pick him up, I imagine he's essentially Edwardian Paterfamilias, worries if the boys don't seem manly enough, and sends them to public school soon after they're weaned. Maybe a lot nicer with the girls..?

It's the fact that it isn't defined that made me wonder, and think about the Madge-Jem-Joey dynamic by the time of Jo Returns, when she's an adult living at Die Rosen for the first time on a permanent (not just CS holidays) basis, and for the first time as someone who's left school and embarked on adult life.

there aren't really any matriarchs in CS-land

So to me the statement seems a little left out of field if I read it with sinister overtones.

IMHO we need to be careful what we are accusing Jem of behaving like.

when the ideal of training children to 'instant obedience' gives way to a recognition of adult equality/rights etc,

Just out of curiosity... I think in the New Chalet School when the CS was under siege from the Balbini twins and Mario Balbini was shooting pellets at Jem that Jem hit him repeatedly. Today that behaviour would get him thrown in jail with and probably end up him losing his registration with the GMC, therefore his career as a doctor, and any other career he can think of, and potentially him signing the sex offenders register...

Was this more acceptable/commonplace when the books were written? EBD writes as if this was perfectly acceptable, but it's hard to imagine sixty, seventy years down the line...

When you put it like that, it sounds like Dallas, or one of those dysfunctional family soaps!

After Jem had emerged from the bathroom dripping wet and wearing nothing but a small towel ... ugh, I wish I hadn't had that thought now!

Presumably Jem, knowing Joey from the very beginning, would have expected Joey to be part and package of his houshold - though more difficult to know whether he might have been surprised she wasn't planning on a career or marriage? Also, when would the issue relating to looking after Dick and Mollie's closely-spaced offspring at Die Rosen have been raised by Madge? Perhaps taking in Margot and her daughters was Jem's way of evening up the Bettany/Russell dependents balance!

...this chimes even with my own memories of growing up, where bad behaviour would get you a clatter from neighbours or passerby with no repercussions - not to mention the nuns at school, who could be quite brutal with rulers and pointers.

I really don't see spanking a small boy who was shooting at you as being a sex offence!

Considering Jem is the first person - or at least, the first 'outsider' - to really take an interest in Jo's writing, I don't see him being particularly put out that she means to stay at home and help out with the children in order to be able to pursue a career as an author.

.... her distress at leaving school but not having something interesting to do.

I assume there have been loads of 'Joey the Lady-in-Waiting' drabbles? Comic ones, where it becomes obvious to the Belsornian Court within a week that untidy, tactless, breezy Joey, with her earphones falling around her shoulders, is completely unsuitable for lady-in-waiting duties? Rather sad ones, where Elisaveta is increasingly absorbed back into a very formal Court life, and Joey realises things will never be the same between them? Spine-chilling ones where it becomes clear Cosimo didn't really die in a fall and is coming back to get his revenge?

...[Miss Stewart] gave the word, ‘Heave!’
It was well for all concerned that most of the girls had been well drilled into instantaneous obedience. On the word, they all heaved...

"Did you girls even think of turning Jack loose?" he asked, in a dreadful voice. Laura's head bowed down and she whispered, "Yes, Pa." "After I told you not to?" Pa said, in a more dreadful voice. Laura couldn't speak, but Mary choked, "Yes, Pa."For a moment Pa was silent. He sighed a long sigh... "After this," he said, in a terrible voice, "you girls remember always to do as you're told. Don't you even think of disobeying me. Do you hear?" "Yes, Pa," Laura and Mary whispered. "Do you know what would have happened if you had turned Jack loose?" Pa asked. "No, Pa," they whispered. "He would have bitten those Indians," said Pa. "Then there would have been trouble. Bad trouble. Do you understand?" "Yes, Pa," they said. But they did not understand. "Would they have killed Jack?" Laura asked. "Yes. And that's not all. You girls remember this: You do as you're told, no matter what happens." "Yes, Pa," Laura said, and Mary said, "Yes, Pa." They were glad they had not turned Jack loose. "Do as you're told," said Pa, "and no harm will come to you."

I think the emphasis on instant obedience had two aspects. One was the idea, as a few others have mentioned, that a child when told to be quiet, put on their shoes, etc., should do so without discussion or debate.

The statement somewhere along the lines that Frieda - or was it Maria - would sooner fly to the moon than disobey her father does not sit well with me. And obviously not with EBD via Madge/the staffs response to the same performing some prank that they think is a good sign of independence, despite her later repetition of the instant obedience mantra.

Tor wrote:

Yes, good point. Can't remember where this takes place but doesn't Amy Stevens snap at Margia for ordering her to do something? Everyone is initially surprised but then delighted because it indicates that Amy, unlike the Marani girls, has a mind of her own. Like most people here I always see Madge as being encouraging of girls developing independent thinking.

‘I know that, and I’m very sorry about it. But I daren’t risk you coming up, even to the Annexe. I know you, Joey! You’d never have kept away from here if you’d been so near us.’
This was so true that Jo had nothing to say

I hope Joey got paid for her work at the school. It would probably have been considered vulgar of her to ask if they didn't offer, but I hope that she didn't have to ask ... if that makes sense!

I have to say that I don't have much sympathy with her either. She claims that Madge needs her to help with the kids, but Madge employs Rosa as a full-time nanny and there are also vague references to a "Mamsell" in some of the books. There are plenty of things that she could have done.

I think the allowance was a pretty normal concept for unmarried, adult daughters of well to do families. They wouldn't/couldn't support themselves, and probably wouldn't be allowed to manage their own money if they had an inheritance

I have no idea whether I would have had the slightest motivation at school, if I hadn't been aware that I needed certain exam results for my university course... It must be kind of hard to work consistently in a vacuum when you're 17 or so, when the only 'goal' is getting a 'Very good' from a teacher.

[Cherry] had only come because she was given no chance to do otherwise. At half-past six her step-father had ordered her to get her hat and come with him as he wished her to see the slides. Cherry adored him; but she was also slightly in awe of him. When he spoke with a certain note in his voice, she obeyed without demur. So it chanced that she was present; but she had no notion of making friends with anyone, or regarding the school with anything but enmity

This combination of adoring and being in awe and obeying without demur when there is a certain note in his voice -- is this akin to Frieda being no more likely to fly then disobey her father? Or is Mr Christy being "nasty" a la Jem?

And of course Michael Christy is a former Naval officer, isn't he, so used to dealing with midshipmen... :wink:

“You can’t afford to neglect even the first weeks of a baby’s life. I’ve seen that with Mrs Maynard. From the very first her children have learn certain things – obedience among them. The child reaches girlhood – or boyhood – with obedience engrained in its character. By degrees it becomes possible to drop the ‘you must’ attitude. Then one ought to see that any order is reasonable. If a child can see that, so much the better. If not then try to take time to give your reasons for it. Most of us are reasonable folk, Janet, if we’re given the chance. So if you start with all that sort of thing with a baby, certain qualities belong to one’s character and, unless one is a hopeless jellyfish, they won’t give way, even under severe strain.'

On the other hand, some of EBD's ideas about obedience are fairly Victorian - this bit from Adrienne (Hilda speaking to Janet Henderson) suggests she's never had much to do with babies. I know, I know there's the Gina Ford approach, but it's more of a training to a regular routine than 'obedience'. Newborns have no concept of 'obedience'!

Author:	MJKB [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:	trained to instant obedience
What do people think about CS parents' insistence on 'instant obedience' from their children. The first person to issue this statement is Jem Russell at Bernhilda's wedding. He is in company with the Menches and some of the other continental parents at the time. Madge laughingly pulls him up for criticising the way in which British and American parents allow thier children too much freedom but Jem continues to put forward his rigid views on child rearing. In view of this dogmatic stance, it is somewhat ironic that his own daughter, Sybil, turns out to be so self willed and selfish.

Author:	Mrs Redboots [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Mightn't that be why, don't you think? For some children, it probably worked well; for Sybil, feeling overshadowed in the nursery by her older cousins and brother, it was not good training - yet she could scarcely have been brought up under a different regime to the others and remained in the same nursery. Margot Maynard was the same, I think - the training worked well for the two older ones, but Margot was inclined to test her boundaries to the limit, and occasionally beyond!

Author:	Mel [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Yet Robin, who is the most obedient angel ever to flutter down from heaven, was trained to instant obedience by a delicate young mother and the very easy-going Ted. If masterful Jem and 'that iron disciplinarian' Madge can't do it with Sybil, then it suggests that it isn't really feasible except with gentle children who want to please. Another of EBD' s day-dreams perhaps like trilingual education?

Author:	Alison H [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I wish EBD didn't use that expression so much because it really grates on me - it sounds like something you'd say about a dog rather than a child. Actually, that's just made me think of Julie Andrews saying that "Whistles are for dogs and cats and other animals but not for children ..." - maybe the film version of Captain von Trapp (I appreciate that he wasn't like that in real life) was based on EBD's model of Austrian fathers! I know some children who are very badly-behaved and whom I think could do with better discipline (sorry to sound like a grumpy old woman!), but the "instant obedience" thing makes me think of children who are cowed and frightened, although I accept that that's not what EBD meant. I find it quite sad when (in the hb of Head Girl) some of the girls are shocked by Grizel's reluctance to study music and make it clear that they think she should accept what her father wants to do even though it will make her unhappy.

Author:	Rachelj [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I'd say it's a question of how often it's used. There will be circumstances where you need children to obey you without question for their own safety, and as a parent you need to know that they will do so. Probably, you can only do that though fear or by showing them that they can trust your decisions. But for day to day discipline I would go with something that helps them to learn to make sensible choices for themselves, by thinking through the consequences.

The CBB http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/

trained to instant obedience http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5307

Author:	Nightwing [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I think some children are just naturally going to test boundaries no matter how strict their parents' discipline is - look at Emerence, who is given barely any boundaries at all and still manages to push her parents to the limit - I know EBD's point was supposed to be "Parents need to give their children discipline or look what happens!" but considering some of the other children have strict parents and still manage to be outrageously naughty, I think EBD was accidentally allowing that both nature and nurture were involved in children's behaviour.

Author:	Sunglass [ Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I think the 'instant obedience' school of child rearing is one of the more obviously old-fashioned/pre-war bits of the CS books. It goes along with the surprisingly Victorian elements of Freudesheim even c. 1960 - things like separate nurseries where the children spend a lot of their time with nannies. I have to say I find the idea of 'training' a small baby or toddler to instant obedience a bit of a joke, or terribly sinister, depending on whether you think it's possible. EBD appears to think that 'instant obedience' is the only alternative to Emerence's permissive parents, or Junior's (in Richenda) - the one I really feel for, though, is Robin. All that needing to be obedient and continually cheerful because of her health must have been very tiresome, because you couldn't even rebel properly, because it was all done to keep you alive... While I have no issue with religious vocations in general, it always depresses me that she goes on to spend her adult life being even more obedient. And I'm far from clear on how you would differentiate EBD-approved training to instant obedience from the kind of thing that made Grizel so cowed and unhappy? Also, is there any evidence that continental Europeans during the periods of the books were extremely strictly reared? Is anyone here the product of that kind of upbringing?

Author:	MJKB [ Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Taking up Sunglasses point about Robin's vocation, I agree, it is depressing in some ways. Robin was fated from the very beginning to lead a life of abolute purity and perfection. In one of the earlier books, can't remember which, she throws water out of the window and, drenches Eugin. Now I'm not condoning the dousing of the unfortunate Eugin, but surely the Rosenalp people should have been secretly pleased that she showed a little spark of mischief. But no, Madge ticks her off in that sorrow more than anger mode that the CS adults often show to the children in their care. Instant obedience in children is predicated on the belief that adults should always be regarded as the power broker in all relationships. In view of the dreadful revelations over the past two decades about the subjugation, and worse, of children by adults, this insistence on instant obedience is really quite scary.

Author:	Nightwing [ Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Sunglass wrote: And I'm far from clear on how you would differentiate EBD-approved training to instant obedience from the kind of thing that made Grizel so cowed and unhappy? I think the difference is that the parents (and guardians) who were EBD-approved were those who were loving and compassionate, and that these two qualities were shown to be important for a child's well-being. Betty Wynne-Davies' problems are shown to come back to the fact that her guardian only cares for her material needs, and Richenda's disobedience, while not condoned, is allowed to be in part because her father won't understand her. While the Maynards, Russells, and other families may expect "instant obedience", there is never any question of them not loving their children.

Author:	Alison H [ Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I always find it a great paradox that we're constantly being told that Robin has been loved and petted all her life and yet Ted is happy to dump her on total strangers (he knew Madge but Robin didn't, and he didn't even realise that the Head of the CS was someone he knew when Herr Anserl first told him about the place). Much as I've always liked the much-discussed idea that he was a spy , given that he later becomes Jem's secretary it doesn't sound as if the sort of work he does is actually so unusual that he wouldn't have been able to get a job somewhere where he considered it OK for Robin to live with him (OK, I know it's only a plot device, but even so). The scene in which Robin wakes up in the dormitory with Joey and Juliet and starts asking who they are and where she is and where her father's gone is really quite upsetting: the poor little kid must have been absolutely terrified. Er, to get back to the point, the Mensches and the Maranis are also shown as being parents who expect instant obedience, and they're obviously meant to be seen as loving parents. Interestingly, Gisela, when she becomes a mother, says that she means to model herself on Madge: she doesn't mention modelling herself on either her own mother or Gottfried's . ETA - just remembered that Gisela and Joey then have a discussion about the "training" that both David (a toddler) and Natalie (a newborn), like they're dogs or performing seals .

Author:	tiffinata [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
A child will only obey if it wants to, or in the case of negitive discipline, because that is the safest option for them at the time. If it feels loved and you have set some boundaries you have more chance of getting the message through long term. A fearful child might obey at the time, but when it is out of the disciplinarian's sight 'the cat's away, the mice shall play' and may lead to a more serious or dangerous behaviour

Author:	Cat C [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:10 am ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I wonder if some of this has been misunderstood. Unquestioning obedience could just mean raising children so that if they are told: Sit down there and be quiet (in, say a doctors' waiting room) they will sit down and keep quiet - unlike the kids who rampage about the place / whinge about being bored. Or if they're told: We're going on a walk to the park, put your coat, hat and gloves on, get on and do that. It doesn't mean they never have fun, or be naughty or whatever, it just means you don't have to spend forever telling them to do ordinary, sensible things. And it's entirely consistent with either nice or nasty parents.

Author:	Róisín [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I didn't realise that 'instant obedience' was more Victorian than it was 1920s or 30s. Can anyone recommend a book that was written before the CS (ie in the 1900s or 1890s) where it might really pop out?

Author:	Cel [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Cat C wrote: Unquestioning obedience could just mean raising children so that if they are told: Sit down there and be quiet (in, say a doctors' waiting room) they will sit down and keep quiet - unlike the kids who rampage about the place / whinge about being bored. This is what I always understood 'instant obedience' to mean in the Chalet School context, and it never seemed in the least bit sinister to me. Certainly when my siblings and I were children, we would have been expected to obey those sorts of instructions without having to be asked twice, and I think we were better for it. I don't see anything wrong with training a young child to obey orders without question, when they're too young to be able to always rationally make the right decision. And as long as they know they only have to do what they're told by parent/teacher/other known adult, not just by anyone. If that makes any sense...

Author:	Tor [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
What I think interesting is that I am not convinced that early EBD was convinced by 'instant obedience'. When Jem gives his two pennys worth about it, and Her Marani?Mensch? (can't remember which Austrian Patriarch was involved) agrees, quite smugly, I think, Madge is stated as saying nothing. In that sentence I read a tacit and continued disagreement on Madge's part. I don't think she was going to take that view, whatever the official 'party line' might be. We also see plenty of effort on the part of Madge, and later Joey, and the Mistresses all 'trying to get into the skin' of their troublesome charges. So, maybe that's what brings balance to the whole thing. I have to say that 'unquestioning' obedience is scary, particularly in older children, instant obedience is subtly different. You can obey a command like 'go to bed' instantly, whilst rolling your eyes and grumbling, or seething inwardly. We see this an awful lot in CS-land- and it is good i think- it implies spirit, but also a level of respect. I have to say that the Marani/Mensch girls behaviour with their parents is a bit insipid and irritating. They are much more fun in school, and I reckon it was good for them! By the end of the series, EBD seems much more pro obedience in general (getting to the 'kids these days' age, I guess!). But even here, we practically never see it!

Author:	Mia [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Róisín wrote: I didn't realise that 'instant obedience' was more Victorian than it was 1920s or 30s. Can anyone recommend a book that was written before the CS (ie in the 1900s or 1890s) where it might really pop out? ?The Elsie books

Author:	Alison H [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
The obsession with obedience in the Elsie books is scary and really quite horrible - Mr Dinsmore and Captain Raymond just freak me out with the way they try to cow their daughters into obeying their every word and not even thinking for themselves . Martha Finley presented this largely as some sort of religious thing, which EBD to be fair doesn't really. Laura Ingalls Wilder, who had a similar strict Presbyterian Scottish-American background to Martha Finley's, and of course was writing about real life experiences, showed her parents as expecting total obedience, but Ma and Pa Ingalls always come across as being lovely parents whereas Mr Dinsmore and Captain Raymond are (IMHO) vile.

Author:	Jennie [ Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
A toddler/small child who is instantly obedient is a ticking time-bomb, because they never learn to decide things for themselves.

Author:	Travellers Joy [ Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Alison H wrote: The obsession with obedience in the Elsie books is scary and really quite horrible - Mr Dinsmore and Captain Raymond just freak me out with the way they try to cow their daughters into obeying their every word and not even thinking for themselves . ... Mr Dinsmore and Captain Raymond are (IMHO) vile. Oh, I do so agree with you! I'll admit I've only read the one Elsie book - I refused to come back for more of that! I felt positively ill after wading through whichever book it was. I kept hoping things would improve, but they didn't.

Author:	Loryat [ Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
The concept of instant obediance just seems totally unreal to me, although when I think about some of the Rainbows in my unit I can sometimes wish that they had been trained to it . I can't believe that it would ever work without an element of fear, except with naturally biddable children like Robin and Frieda. EBD never seems to really think about the repercussions of 'instant obedience' and her favourite characters Joey and ML are not known for it.

Author:	Dawn [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I know this is an ages old topic, but I'm just catching up from moving On Masterchef this week, there was an Asian contestant who wanted to be a chef rather than a solicitor. She was asked why and the reply was that Asian girls often have little say even now in what they do. She'd been given 3 choices of career by her parents: law, engineering and I can't remember the other one. She was obviously speaking the truth and both the (male white) judges looked totally shocked.

Author:	Lesley [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Would medicine be the other one, Dawn? It wouldn't surprise me. How terrible that they might have so little choice. One wonders how many other professions have lost potentially world class people because of this.

Author:	Dawn [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Lesley wrote: Would medicine be the other one, Dawn? It wouldn't surprise me. How terrible that they might have so little choice. One wonders how many other professions have lost potentially world class people because of this. I think it probably was medicine, but I was so gobsmacked that I lost listening ability And I'd say she was only in her 30s at most At Chris's speach day the speaker was talking about how she disapproved of people living at home while going to uni (she wasn't very motivatinoal!) and I just wanted to say to her: apart from the cost - look at the colour of the skin of a lot of them and think about why most of the Asian girls go to a very local university....

Author:	MJKB [ Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I have to exercise considerable patience when Asian, and some African, parents insist on medicine and law for their children. This is the case even when it is patently obvious that there is an ability deficit. If I suggest, say nursing, to the aspiring doctors I might as well have suggested toilet cleaning!One girl. of fairly average ability, applied to Ireland, England and America for medicine and has now headed off to Hungary to study, which is costing an absolute fortune. I hope she makes it but have very strong doubts that she will. Having said all that, most of our newcomers from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe have such a regard and respect for education that they put many of the Irish students to shame.

Author:	rae86 [ Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
In several of the earlier CS books, I think Madge mentions that there is an element about Jem that scares Joey completely so that she takes medicine, or behaves properly. I've always wondered what this element consists of, and what is said, I've always imagined that I would tend to buck my sister's husband's attempts at discipline...

Author:	Sunglass [ Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
rae86 wrote: In several of the earlier CS books, I think Madge mentions that there is an element about Jem that scares Joey completely so that she takes medicine, or behaves properly. I've always wondered what this element consists of, and what is said, I've always imagined that I would tend to buck my sister's husband's attempts at discipline... Yes, I've just been re-reading Jo Returns, and when Mademoiselle warns Madge that Joey will try to insist on returning to the Sonnalpe to help during the measles: Quote: 'Then I will bring Jo here and say that you wish her to telephone you, and she will obey you as always.’ ‘That’s all very well,’ sighed Madge Russell. ‘But Jo is grown up now, ridiculous as it seems, and I’m not her mother—only her sister [...] Mercifully, Jem will back me up, and she is afraid of annoying him. He can be nasty with her when he likes, fond as he is of her.’ Of course, it's an odd situation to 21st century eyes - Jo is an educated, independent-minded adult, but preparing to live with her sister's family (presumably relying on them for her keep) for the foreseeable future, given that at this point she plans neither to have a career or to marry. But while her sister now says that as Joey is an adult, she cannot make her obey - in a rather sinister way, Jem who 'can be nasty with her', so that Joey is 'afraid of annoying him', somehow can! This is one of the few moments in the entire series (bar the obvious black spots like Jack's disappearance and the illnesses of various children) when I feel desperately sorry for Joey, who apparently has to live with a brother-in-law of a few years who 'can be nasty' to her, a situation Madge seems to collude with, or not actively oppose. It's the vague-but-sinister 'can be nasty' that alarms me - it seems as though it suggests harsher treatment than Jem simply making sure Joey doesn't overdo things - and the fact that it suggests that his status as head of household means that it doesn't much matter that Joey is no longer a child, which Madge realises. And, as you say, one wonders precisely what he does in order to cow his ebullient, confident sister-in-law? Other than that she doesn't really have anywhere else to go, what hold does he have over her, and why isn't he concerned at alienating his wife if he's 'nasty' to her beloved sister? Actually, I've always loathed Jem after his marriage, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear he threatened Joey with a syringe of sedative every time she showed she had a mind of her own. I know EBD means him to be the epitome of the Manly Doctor, but for me he stops being anything other than authoritarian about the time he puts a ring on Madge's finger.

Author:	Róisín [ Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Mia wrote: Róisín wrote: I didn't realise that 'instant obedience' was more Victorian than it was 1920s or 30s. Can anyone recommend a book that was written before the CS (ie in the 1900s or 1890s) where it might really pop out? ?The Elsie books Really? I've never read them... I think they're in transcript form/ on gutenberg though, so I'll get cracking!

Author:	Fiona Mc [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:10 am ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I always read Joey being nasty with Joey, more that she held him in awe being a stranger until she was 13 or so, whereas she probably knows how she can get around Madge, she doesn't so much with Jem, so when Jem says no you can't come back to a houseful of sick kids to get sick yourself, she'd listen more than her older sister. I certainly don't see Jem as authoritarian to the exclusion of all else. He has a great relationship with the pupils of the Chalet School, has them in his home etc, opens his home to all who needs one. I could see him being annoyed with Joey and being a lot more direct with her if Joey decides to ignore Jem which fair enough too, as Joey at times doesn't show a lot of commen sense.

Author:	Sunglass [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Fiona Mc wrote: ... more that she held him in awe being a stranger until she was 13 or so, whereas she probably knows how she can get around Madge, she doesn't so much with Jem, so when Jem says no you can't come back to a houseful of sick kids to get sick yourself, she'd listen more than her older sister. [I could see him being annoyed with Joey and being a lot more direct with her if Joey decides to ignore Jem which fair enough too, as Joey at times doesn't show a lot of commen sense. My only problem with that is Madge, who presumably loves her husband, actually says Jem 'can be nasty with her' and that Joey is afraid of annoying him. That sounds to me like something other than the usual strictures Joey has always had from every adult in the vicinity about taking care of her health (which we keep being told is now fine...). Also, there are differences in appropriate ways of treating someone who is still a schoolgirl, compared to the way you treat someone who is an adult, as Madge realises, but Jem doesn't seem to. Also, if Joey won't listen to someone who's been the only parent she's ever remembered, and her headmistress, why on earth would she listen to someone who only married her sister a few years earlier? Some kind of head of household authority mixed with the Ultimate Medical Authority EBD seems to take as absolutely not to be disobeyed? (Also, have we ever really seen Joey disobey Madge? Quite the contrary, I'd have said. Madge, at least before her marriage, was well able to make herself obeyed.)

Author:	Alison H [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
It wouldn't have been that unusual at the time: George V famously said that he was going to make sure that his sons (although presumably not his daughters) were afraid of him as he'd been frightened of his father and his father had been frightened of his father, and he was only one generation older than Jem. It does sound pretty horrible, though: admittedly it was Joey's own choice not to try to get a job, but a lot of single or widowed women at that time did for various reasons end up having to live with relatives and were vulnerable to being ordered about by an authoritarian head of the household because they had nowhere else to go. Jem can be lovely sometimes, but both he and Jack can be worryingly authoritarian. I can't imagine Dick Bettany or most of the other men being like that, but unfortunately I can well imagine Reg Entwistle being an exception. We don't often see Jem with the children: I wonder what he was like with them. He and Madge were in a difficult position in many ways because they were looking after a lot of children to whom they weren't parents nor legal guardians. I can imagine Jem reprimanding Rix for some prank or other and Rix turning round and saying that he didn't have to obey Jem because Jem wasn't his father.

Author:	Fiona Mc [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I remember it being mentioned in Gay after Sybil spilt the kettle over Josette saying Madge was usually the strict one while Jem was a bit more lenient and after that incidence, they kind of switched roles, so Jem must have been a lot of fun with the kids or at least relaxed with them

Author:	Sunglass [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
I would perceive a marked resemblance between KGV and Jem, come to think of it. And I mean it as a compliment to neither. Alison H wrote: admittedly it was Joey's own choice not to try to get a job, but a lot of single or widowed women at that time did for various reasons end up having to live with relatives and were vulnerable to being ordered about by an authoritarian head of the household because they had nowhere else to go. Sure, though I always wonder slightly about that in Joey's case - one assumes the Bettanys have previously been on a social/financial level where women didn't need to work, and she'd seen Madge presumably not work until their financial affairs were in disarray and she started the CS. At the CS, she was surrounded by girls like Marie and Frieda (no thought of working after school) and Simone (entirely necessary that she continue to train for a job, but also something she wants) - but other than the Belsornia option, we never see her seriously considering any kind of career, just piddling about at Die Rosen helping out and taking singing lessons. I wonder why she didn't, and how/whether it was conveyed to her that Madge and Jem were prepared to continue to support her indefinitely. She complains so much in her last year of school about how her life will be so much less 'full' that one wonders why she didn't think about doing something which would fill her life and also get her away from old George V. Alison H wrote: We don't often see Jem with the children: I wonder what he was like with them. He and Madge were in a difficult position in many ways because they were looking after a lot of children to whom they weren't parents nor legal guardians. I can imagine Jem reprimanding Rix for some prank or other and Rix turning round and saying that he didn't have to obey Jem because Jem wasn't his father. Go Rix! I say. From Jem's attitude to training baby David in obedience, and forbidding Madge to pick him up, I imagine he's essentially Edwardian Paterfamilias, worries if the boys don't seem manly enough, and sends them to public school soon after they're weaned. Maybe a lot nicer with the girls..? Though as you say, one can find it in one's heart to feel some pity for a man whose marriage - not even to someone with children from a previous marriage! - lands him with a literal houseful of other people's offspring for whom he has full responsibility...

Author:	Cat C [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Quote: From Jem's attitude to training baby David in obedience, and forbidding Madge to pick him up, I imagine he's essentially Edwardian Paterfamilias, worries if the boys don't seem manly enough, and sends them to public school soon after they're weaned. Maybe a lot nicer with the girls..? But you still get that sort of thing going on now (even if not quite for the same stated reasons) - there was that series a year or two ago about different ways of bringing up children, to do with feeding strategies and ways to get them to sleep through the night. Coping with babies and small children can be incredibly stressful after all. I wonder if Jem was trying to save Madge making a rod for her own back?

Author:	MaryR [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: trained to instant obedience
Quote: From Jem's attitude to training baby David in obedience, and forbidding Madge to pick him up, I imagine he's essentially Edwardian Paterfamilias, worries if the boys don't seem manly enough, and sends them to public school soon after they're weaned. Maybe a lot nicer with the girls..? When I was born in 1946 my mother was told to leave me in my pram at the bottom of the garden when I cried and not to keep picking me up! Hardly Edwardian, when we're just after the war. She told me many years later that she never cuddled me just for the sake of it, but then changed completely when she had my brother 4 years later. I like both Jem and Jack, even if they do have their off-days. Don't we all?