#but her treatment of her children was also traumatising in that they couldn't trust that she unconditionally loved them

[mirrorofliterature]

here's an opinion that i don't necessarily entirely agree with but i think it has great points and i'm curious to hear your take on it:

while molly weasley was very far from a perfect mother and made many mistakes, it's as good as a human person can do under the circumstances she grew up and lived in (two wars, losing her brothers and many friends, her husband and kids constantly being in danger, living under constant threat of war, financial status, treatment by other families etc.) and the fandom judges her way too harshly while characters who were much worse parental figures and were plain out horrible and neglectful (especially men) get off the hook very easily

strongly agree | agree | neutral | disagree | strongly disagree

I agree in part - this may surprise some people, because I do not like molly, nor am I her biggest fan - however.

I think it is important to remember, when criticising molly's parenting (as I do frequently) to not forget the pressures she was operating under - trauma, patriarchy and rigid social structure. And people do often treat molly more harshly than other subpar parents - which is why I make sure to criticise arthur as well, as it takes two to tango and whatnot.

The only part I mildly disagree with is 'as good as a human person can do', because I think that molly could have done more by listening to her children. I don't think that molly or arthur are to blame for their family's low socioeconomic status - poverty is a social construct, and whatnot. What I do fault her for her is her misogynistic treatment of other characters, like Fleur and Hermione, and her treatment of Sirius in Grimmauld Place. That was needlessly cruel.

So in short - I'm not naive. I think the key issue is that a lot of people view Molly as a saint, so a lot of people swing heavily back into painting her as the devil - whereas, as a lot of things in HP, the true answer lies somewhere in between. Molly was good intentioned as a parent and was hampered by a lot of things, particularly trauma and money. She loved her children, undeniably. But this provides an explanation for her behaviour - it doesn't excuse it.

I think that other characters should get similar levels of scrutiny - as I do with arthur, but I don't think that necessitates us giving her the excuse of 'oh, it's okay that her children felt conditionally loved because she was traumatised!' [Which I don't think this opinion is suggesting, but something to be careful of]. I understand why molly is the way she is - she grew up in a socially conservative time during a war and lost a lot. But. If I am writing from the perspective of a Weasley child, they are going to have complex feelings about Molly, and Arthur.

So, in short: I agree. I think molly is a deeply flawed mother, shaped largely by her environment, but that does not mean she cannot be held accountable for the hurt she caused. I think the fandom's laser focus on her is at times misogynistic, but it's not particularly unique. Also, not every criticism of a female character is necessarily misogynistic. Molly often takes a lot of flack because she is presented as this paragon of motherhood quite overtly in the books, compared to others - so she's a bigger target than a lot of others.

I like the take, but I personally would veer away from saying she couldn't have done any better. She is a realistic mother: that doesn't mean she couldn't have done better.