Click here for an easy and free way to help protect endangered habitat at The Rainforest Site! Non-profit ad by Voyager
VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:25:01 01/23/08 Wed
Author: Rollaine
Subject: Good observation. Claire's reaction in dealing with Malva's beating in an objective way is interesting. She has absolutely no problem using certain 20th century medical practices. Yet, with the treatment of women, she remains fairly silent. You asked this question above about feminsim. In my post below, I thought it would be quite dangerous for Claire & Bree to start talking women's rights in the volatile 1770's (let's face, women only got the right to vote in this country less than 100 yrs ago). I'm thinking it would not be well received. But what about moral absolutes? I'm not religious, I'm an agnosotic. But I believe there are moral absolutes-and I think beating a person and leaving bruises and marks is one of those absolutes. This is not self-defense. This is the "I'm the man/father-I have the right"...nonsense, that's crap. At least she could have said to Jamie-no this is morally wrong and should not be acceptable.
In reply to: JessieR 's message, "Yea—I agree, Pamela. This was a missed opportunity on Claire’s part, as well as a missed opportunity for DG to illustrate a moment of female bonding. >>>inside>>>" on 16:04:42 01/23/08 Wed


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I mean no offense, but in fact, the notion of corporal punishment of children actually isn't a moral absolute; it's one of the cultural paradigms that shifts over time and between cultures. (Unlike murder and incest, which do seem to be universally viewed as immoral.) I *really* don't mean to be offensive, but, "That's not acceptable!" is such a very-late-20th-century response to something one personally disapproves of. Even in Claire's part of the 20th century, a parent's right to correct his/her children physically was taken for granted. Certainly it was in the 18th. Jamie, for one, doesn't see it as morally wrong, and he's been physically disciplined pretty frequently himself. He does explicitly make a distinction between corporal punishment (even to the point of bruises) and "beating" someone, and it's a real distinction, I think. -- maddiej, 13:30:52 01/24/08 Thu


[ Edit | View ]




[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No offense taken, but I still respectfully disagree. The idea that its cultural, doesn't make it right. Slavery was justified by religion and practiced by many cultures, but it is morally wrong. The treatment of women in many cultures as second class (lack of education, voting rights, beating, the seling of girls inot prostitution) is also "justified" as cultural, but is morally wrong. For me, these are moral absolutes-they are wrong. It's not wrong to discipline one's children, but beating is beating. You may disagree, but it is for ME it is morally wrong-and something I see as a moral absolute. You may not-your beliefs differ from mine. Again, I think at the very least, Claire could have voiced her concerns-she has no problem speaking up about other things. It seemed that she was bothered by Malva's treatment. -- Rollaine, 16:10:41 01/24/08 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> maddie—interesting post. But when does Claire support the corporal punishment of a woman or child? Though I don’t know if Claire sees her position as a moral absolute, the textual evidence suggests that she agrees with Rollaine: the practice is “not acceptable.” Plus, Jamie’s behavior is not always consistent with his statements about corporal punishment, which suggests that the cultural paradigms of the 18thC were more nuanced than we might think. (Wasn’t Bentham opposing corporal punishment in schools in the late 18thC?). In the end, the novels tell me that Claire and Jamie can take a beating far better than they can administer one to a child or a woman. >>going long>> -- JessieR, 18:24:33 01/24/08 Thu

In Outlander, Claire is repulsed by the potential public beating of teenage Laoghaire and characterizes it as “barbaric.” Jamie takes the beating anyway in order to spare Laoghaire the humiliation. Claire intervenes in the ear-nailing incident, and it’s Jamie who helps her. In DIA, Claire’s aghast (and so is Jamie) that Fergus must be beat for something she did (it’s Fergus who really wants the beating). Jamie doesn’t want to thrash young Ian in Voyager, but he does so because Ian, Sr. makes him. The culture, and in the case of Fergus, even the child, supported the punishment of these young people, but it’s Claire and Jamie who prevent it from happening or who are troubled by carrying it out.

As for beating women--Claire forgives Jamie beating her, but she threatens to disembowel him if he does it again. (He likes to threaten her, but I cannot imagine him taking a strap to her again, even though she disobeys him right and left). When Claire witnesses Tom Christie beating the bare bum of his grown daughter, she’s not only concerned, she’s alarmed. She suspects that he’s sexualizing the act. She may not shout from the rafters that Christie better knock it off, but she does ask Jamie to check on Malva, and despite his bravado about men showing who’s in charge, he does what she asks. Even Ian taking a strap to Jenny is less about punishment and more about Jenny’s agency as a loving wife who wants to empower her husband.

As far as I can recall, there is only one instance where Claire sanctions the corporal punishment of a woman or child, and only one instance where she delivers it. She asks Jamie to beat her with nettles in Dragonfly in Amber, but she does so to restore Jamie’s pride rather than to correct her behavior. Jamie notably doesn’t take her up on the offer. And Claire does land a solid slap on Malva—enough to knock the girl down—but it’s more an act of defiance and rage than a medium of punishment.

All of this suggests that while the prevailing cultural attitudes of the 18thC supported corporal punishment for wayward children and wives, the protagonists in the Books have much more modern sensibilities, including Jamie. For a guy who asserts a man is someone who must “draw up lines and fight other folk who come over them,” he seems very uncomfortable fighting folk who happen to be women and children. Readers are left reconciling his statements with his behavior, and his behavior seems to suggest that he’s not fully subscribed to the 18thC notion that beating a youngster or a woman is an effective form of correction. I just can’t tell if the change in him is due to his own thinking or to the fact that’s he’s married to a woman who in nearly ever case finds corporal punishment “not acceptable.”

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> All I can say is...wow, JessieR! I'm impressed! I most certainly see these beatings (and, yes, to me these are beatings-not a little slap on the wrist or behind) as morally wrong. Look at the ramifications-what effect did this have on Malva (or anyone for that matter)? I have a hard time when injustice is claoked in culture. Becasue it is prevalent or accepted doesn't make it right. MaddieJ mentioned incest and murder as 2 pretty standard morally wrong absolutes (and yes, they are). And yet, incest was routinely practiced among the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. Many cultures practiced human sacrifice. Isn't that pretty much culturally sanctioned murder?? Even today, there are parts of the world where "honor killing" is practiced. Yes, corporal punishment may have been "accepted" and sanctioned, but it most certainly doesn't make it right-at least IMHO. -- Rollaine, 18:46:17 01/24/08 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What a wonderful synopsis of this subject in the books, Jessie. Thinking about the different situations you mention, my first reaction was that maybe Jamie would behave pretty much the same way without Claire's influence. going long>>>> -- Carol P, 20:24:40 01/24/08 Thu

He didn't like being thrashed and he doesn't think it's effective. He even forces Ian to admit that a beating never stopped him from doing what he wanted. Add those experiences to a grown man with a strong protective bent, and thrashing women and children might very well smack of unfair bullying. Jamie might agree with Maddie, he might not say it's immoral, but his actions surely shout that he doesn't think it's right or honorable. The lines Jamie draws are for other men not to cross and he's more than willing to enforce those lines with physical force. He's learned from experience that he doesn't need to use force to enforce his lines against weaker folk. Rollaine has identifed one the big moral quandries faced by all people in all times. It's very hard to identify and eliminate an injustice that is prevalent and acceptable in a society, regardless of what label we put on it. And yet, humans do make those changes. Corporal punishment was very common and almost universally accepted and practiced in homes and public schools when I was a child. Yet, by the time I was 35, all schools had stopped the practice, I knew no parents who would spank their kids and people were openly critical if a parent did such a thing in public. I'm still not sure how that change came about so quickly.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rollaine and Jessie--no problem with disagreeing. I don't happen to think corporal punishment is generally useful myself. Just pointing out *why* Claire probably wasn't storming down the hillside and informing Mr. Christie that his behavior wasn't acceptable. Regardless of her own feelings about corporal punishment, she is the product of a time when that *was* acceptable, and is in a time when it's even more so. -- maddiej, 02:16:48 01/25/08 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops, pushed Send too soon....meant to add that Claire doesn't just go away and ignore the situation. She does what she thinks is most likely to be effective, given what she knows of the Christies at this point. That Tom is a stubborn religious fundamentalist who thinks women are basically immoral *and* stupid, and that Malva is secretive about her homelife. So it's not likely that direct inquiry or interference by Claire will achieve anything, but Jamie might at least put the fear of Jamie (if not God) into Tom Christie and prevent injury to Malva. Claire may be opinionated and impulsive, but she is observant, and she isn't stupid. -- maddiej, 02:22:25 01/25/08 Fri


[ Edit | View ]










[ Contact Forum Admin ]





Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.