Jump to content
Theda Baratheon

Outlander II: Sing me a Song...

Recommended Posts

For any woman who worked outside the home in those days, who wasn't a nurse or a teacher -- women were not doctors and women weren't professors, hardly ever! -- (one of my best friends was in the first class of her medical school to admit women -- there were about 20 women when they began, when she completed, she was the only one left, the teaching doctors and male students made it so rough -- it was nearly impossible to get paying work outside the home.

And even nurses and teachers were more often than not frowned upon by the community because they couldn't be depended on to do so much of the non-paying public community service work that the middle-class women such as my mom did.   Ask any woman who was in that position at the time, or their children.  And this is what the alt right believes should still be the case.

In such communities divorced women were pariahs.  Widows almost as much.

In large cities immigrant classes such as the Italian neighborhoods in the city where I live, those women were recruited in droves early for the telephone exchanges and so on. When the WWII came along they kept those jobs, and they were enticed to stay on after the war with pensions and so on.  This was a huge exception.  Do you not remember the government encouraged propaganda push in the media to get women out of the jobs they took during WWII because the military took so many of the men? Especially the women's magazines targeted that program of the ideal (white) life of home woman in suburbia, which also showed up after WWII to house all these nuclear families made by men home from the War -- togetherness!

See, for instance:

https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/honors/documents/journals/soundings/Holt.pdf

Huge numbers of US literary novels and movies and films of the 50's and 60's were devoted to the neurosis that togetherness acquired in suburbia. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Zorral said:

For any woman who worked outside the home in those days, who wasn't a nurse or a teacher -- women were not doctors and women weren't professors, hardly ever! -- (one of my best friends was in the first class of her medical school to admit women -- there were about 20 women when they began, when she completed, she was the only one left, the teaching doctors and male students made it so rough -- it was nearly impossible to get paying work outside the home.

And even nurses and teachers were more often than not frowned upon by the community because they couldn't be depended on to do so much of the non-paying public community service work that the middle-class women such as my mom did.   Ask any woman who was in that position at the time, or their children.  And this is what the alt right believes should still be the case.

I was speaking about modern trope that somehow working mother can't have a strong bond with the daughter. Frank insinuated that because Claire is a doctor, that due to her working hours, her relationship with Brianna is not as strong as the one he shares with her, which is why Brianna would rather have opted to live with Frank in London. That was what I was referring to. I feel that every time a working mother is portrayed in American TV/movies, it always comes with the "necessary" part of "her missing part of children's life". Which is not the case when working fathers are in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Risto said:

I was speaking about modern trope that somehow working mother can't have a strong bond with the daughter. Frank insinuated that because Claire is a doctor, that due to her working hours, her relationship with Brianna is not as strong as the one he shares with her, which is why Brianna would rather have opted to live with Frank in London. That was what I was referring to. I feel that every time a working mother is portrayed in American TV/movies, it always comes with the "necessary" part of "her missing part of children's life". Which is not the case when working fathers are in question.

Ah.  Thanks for the clarification.  But working mothers then, like working mothers now, were and are subjected to that accusation by so many, including their husbands (who will also accuse them of being financial burdens and parasites when they DON'T Work -- women cannot ever win), and not unusually their own children.  Which is why one day in the laundromat back in the day it was so wonderful to hear a boy about 15 who was doing the family laundry respond to his friend who was asking why not make your mom do it?  (It was also clear that his mother had live-in help).  The laundry - doing boy was not intimidated, and stoutly stood up for his mom because, "She has to work all the time and she gets so tired, that when my sister and I can do something ourselves we want to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Ah.  Thanks for the clarification.  But working mothers then, like working mothers now, were and are subjected to that accusation by so many, including their husbands 

Yes, this.  It's reality.

Also, Frank was clearly trying to hurt Claire and rub in that Briana was closer to him than she was to Claire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Ah.  Thanks for the clarification.  But working mothers then, like working mothers now, were and are subjected to that accusation by so many, including their husbands (who will also accuse them of being financial burdens and parasites when they DON'T Work -- women cannot ever win), and not unusually their own children. 

Damn if you do, damn if you don't. You have a point about that. But, here is a question. Were Frank's words just that - words of a hurt man, or were it objective truth? I can't recall last season's finale and Brianna's relationship with Claire, although I could swear it was not as warm as one may expected it. So, is it just Frank? Or have writers actually gone there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Risto said:

Damn if you do, damn if you don't. You have a point about that. But, here is a question. Were Frank's words just that - words of a hurt man, or were it objective truth? I can't recall last season's finale and Brianna's relationship with Claire, although I could swear it was not as warm as one may expected it. So, is it just Frank? Or have writers actually gone there?

She actually even went to the extent of saying "I wish you were dead instead of him"... So no, it's not just Frank's words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/09/2017 at 9:17 PM, Zorral said:

Partly, but no small part at all, for anyone who is in a relationship -- they are both displaced Brits, who both experienced a very intense, active WWII.  Even today we see how WWII experience draws the Brits together, even among generations that were very young or not yet born.

And now they're in the USA where the WWII experience was rather different -- significantly that the US never experienced direct attacks, invasions or even the level of privations that so many Brits did.

 

 

That's an excellent point and not one I had really considered. 

On 23/09/2017 at 1:20 AM, Zorral said:

It's also, on Claire's side, her understanding that Frank, in NO WAY, is responsible for any of it.  

Yet her entire passion is for another man.

The grandest fantasy infidelity ROMANCE ever.

Gabaldon made it work, and she made it work through the multi-faceted character of all of the triangle: Claire, Frank, Jamie.

Trust me folks, I'm not a fan of infidelity, but I'm pretty much in awe of how this worked -- I can't blame anyone for anything.  Thus ROMANCE, Destinty, Fate, Soul Mates,  all those words that people who cheat on their marriage partners use as an explanation -- it actually works in this context.

In real life, of course, not so much.

By situating her characters upon the vast tides of history --  Time Travel -- Gabaldon has us pulling for them all (her chosen good guys, of course -- but even the very evil ones have their purpose in this great romance).

This was pretty special imagination and writing on Gabaldon's part. (If we don't look too very carefully, maybe?)

 

 

Yeah - I'm exactly the same. No one is the bad guy when it comes down to Claire, Jamie and Frank. Separated by centuries you just can't hate or blame Claire for falling deeply in love with another man and on her return you can't blame her for not being able to ever see Frank in the same way. and yet...Jamie isn't an evil homewrecker and Frank isn't a horrible neglectful husband. None of them did any wrong and yet the whole thing is a royal, heartbreaking mess. 

On 23/09/2017 at 4:13 PM, Zorral said:

She's a terrific companion, for better and for worse, in sickness and in health, for joy and delight, for sorrow and pain.  She is a person with whom one can laugh and with whom one can cry.  She is so present.  Which is where the tragedy is now, for Frank.  She's not present any longer.

 

True. She's always 100% in the moment, alive and real and ready to work with what she has to achieve what she must...and then she goes through the stones...and she can't be that way anymore. Not completely. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, this.  It's reality.

Also, Frank was clearly trying to hurt Claire and rub in that Briana was closer to him than she was to Claire.

Yeah - it isn't just a TV cliche. It's a very real accusation that women have to face. I'm sorry some people are bored of it but it's important that this is still shown in TV because so many people would like the world to go back to this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Yeah - it isn't just a TV cliche. It's a very real accusation that women have to face. I'm sorry some people are bored of it but it's important that this is still shown in TV because so many people would like the world to go back to this. 

I don't think anyone has said that it is not accusation women face or denied the existence of such accusation. The debate dealt, well, at least from my part, that every TV show has to deal with "shortcomings" of working mother. Lion's share of working mothers on TV show are portrayed as women who are failing their children or who can't be close to them. I don't have problem with the accusation (in terms of showing it). I am having issues that what Frank said might actually be true. That was the issue: did the show, by making Claire a doctor, made her relationship with Brianna cold and distant? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of it is that continuing on to become a doctor after years of triage battlefield nursing, and what she further learned and experienced in the 18th century -- it is a natural progression.  Recall Claire says she was better at a great deal, particularly diagnosing, during her WWII experiences than the M.D.s (male).  And in the post war 20th world she returned to, she couldn't just stay home.  She's not psychologically wired for it, and particularly she's not after the 18th century.  Nurses were so submissive then, and were supposed to literally worship doctors as gods -- she had to become one herself to sidestep those demands.

Part of it is on Frank and the unspoken understandings that long-time marriages often demand: Brianna is particularly his, his consolation for Claire not really being there for him, and Brianna being his consolation is Claire's penance.  I know, this sounds rather too deeply spiritually / psychologically significant for popular entertainment, but, that's me, that's how I saw it -- which does not make me right, of course.  The great thing about works that work is that there can be and probably should be several equally valid readings.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Risto said:

I don't think anyone has said that it is not accusation women face or denied the existence of such accusation. The debate dealt, well, at least from my part, that every TV show has to deal with "shortcomings" of working mother. Lion's share of working mothers on TV show are portrayed as women who are failing their children or who can't be close to them. I don't have problem with the accusation (in terms of showing it). I am having issues that what Frank said might actually be true. That was the issue: did the show, by making Claire a doctor, made her relationship with Brianna cold and distant? 

It might very well be true, but the show is team Claire all the way and has never tried to portray claire as a villain for being a healer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

It might very well be true, but the show is team Claire all the way and has never tried to portray claire as a villain for being a healer. 

This is true.

Additionally, in the 18th century she is venerated for being one, respected far more than she would be respected by men for being a nurse in post WWII hospitals  -- as well as threatened with burning for being a witch.  See, above: women cannot be allowed to win, not matter what, no matter what century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This is true.

Additionally, in the 18th century she is venerated for being one, respected far more than she would be respected by men for being a nurse in post WWII hospitals  -- as well as threatened with burning for being a witch.  See, above: women cannot be allowed to win, not matter what, no matter what century.

I just watched episode 3 and even though Claire's reactions to Frank can be seen as harsh - they're never totally unjustifiable however i'm glad they made Frank a well rounded character and I was sad to see him go. 

I love that Claire is a healer and that that part of herself is absolutely a fabric of who she is as a person and something she will never lose. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Risto said:

I don't think anyone has said that it is not accusation women face or denied the existence of such accusation. The debate dealt, well, at least from my part, that every TV show has to deal with "shortcomings" of working mother. Lion's share of working mothers on TV show are portrayed as women who are failing their children or who can't be close to them. I don't have problem with the accusation (in terms of showing it). I am having issues that what Frank said might actually be true. That was the issue: did the show, by making Claire a doctor, made her relationship with Brianna cold and distant? 

It seems to me the show has been clear that Claire has been cold and distant because part of herself is still stuck two centuries in the past.  We saw last season that Claire's relationship with Bri isn't strained because she's a working mother, it's because she has lived with this huge secret for two decades.  Whatever Frank said during the divorce talk, Claire later states firmly that there is no amount of time where she could have forgotten Jamie and her 18th century life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It seems to me the show has been clear that Claire has been cold and distant because part of herself is still stuck two centuries in the past.  We saw last season that Claire's relationship with Bri isn't strained because she's a working mother, it's because she has lived with this huge secret for two decades.  Whatever Frank said during the divorce talk, Claire later states firmly that there is no amount of time where she could have forgotten Jamie and her 18th century life. 

Yeah I think this is a great point - it isn't her work that distances her - it's the fact that so much of herself exists in another time and she can't share that part of herself with anyone. Except Frank...and we know how that turned out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It seems to me the show has been clear that Claire has been cold and distant because part of herself is still stuck two centuries in the past.  We saw last season that Claire's relationship with Bri isn't strained because she's a working mother, it's because she has lived with this huge secret for two decades.  Whatever Frank said during the divorce talk, Claire later states firmly that there is no amount of time where she could have forgotten Jamie and her 18th century life. 

That is a good point. Admittedly, the last season's finale evaporated from my mind, which is why I am struggling to put some pieces together. 

As @Theda Baratheon said, Claire is the hero of the story and this is her story. And in most cases, you can't be a villain in your own story. I was concerned that the show has taken a path in which,employment, which remains one of the most important topic of female empowerment could be examined in such way. The modern TV is full of some great examples of female empowerment and well, some, not so much. I was truly thrown back by the notion that Claire's work would represent an obstacle in her relationship with her daughter.

 

4 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

It might very well be true, but the show is team Claire all the way and has never tried to portray claire as a villain for being a healer. 

I think every aspect of Claire's being is connected to the noble vocation of healer. We see compassion, sympathy and care in her dealings with others, we see how that nature truly blossoms when she needs it the most. We see it in her pursue for independence. As you say, she is a healer and for this character it means so much more than having a degree. One wish this kind of sentiment was shared by many medical dramas :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Risto said:

That is a good point. Admittedly, the last season's finale evaporated from my mind, which is why I am struggling to put some pieces together. 

As @Theda Baratheon said, Claire is the hero of the story and this is her story. And in most cases, you can't be a villain in your own story. I was concerned that the show has taken a path in which,employment, which remains one of the most important topic of female empowerment could be examined in such way. The modern TV is full of some great examples of female empowerment and well, some, not so much. I was truly thrown back by the notion that Claire's work would represent an obstacle in her relationship with her daughter.

 

I think every aspect of Claire's being is connected to the noble vocation of healer. We see compassion, sympathy and care in her dealings with others, we see how that nature truly blossoms when she needs it the most. We see it in her pursue for independence. As you say, she is a healer and for this character it means so much more than having a degree. One wish this kind of sentiment was shared by many medical dramas :D 

Yeah - I like that her love of Jamie isn't the ONLY big thing about her character. She is a healer to the core. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to ask... Was this the last time we see Lord Grey, or is he going to play a role in future events? #needtoreadthebooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Risto said:

I forgot to ask... Was this the last time we see Lord Grey, or is he going to play a role in future events? #needtoreadthebooks

He definitely plays a larger part in the books. I haven't read them all yet myself (only the first one) but I know he's a huge fan favourite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, how many spoilers are you looking for? This is a character I really like and he was cast and directed sooo sooo well. 

Spoiler

Book 8 and he's still around.  He's an integral part of Jamie's story, and becomes such for a bunch of other characters as well.

 

Edited by Dr. Pepper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×