This FreedomHutchinson, A. S. M. (Arthur Stuart-Menteth)
General
This Freedom
Hutchinson, A. S. M. (Arthur Stuart-Menteth)
Marriage -- Fiction; Women -- Social and moral questions -- Fiction
Those children, as they passed through early childhood, never saw their
parents but happy and good-spirited. They never saw them worried nor
ever saw them sad. That was, as one might say, Rosalie’s chief offering
to her darlings. It was splendid to Rosalie that her way of life, far
from causing her (as prejudice would have prophesied) to neglect her
children, enabled her to consider them in their relations with herself
as, by their mothers, children in her childhood never were considered.
That they should associate nothing--nothing at all--but happiness with
her was the basis of it. Children, she held, ought not to see their
parents bad-tempered or distressed or in any way out of sorts or out of
control. For a child to do so has in two ways a bad effect on the child
mind. In the first place, it is harmful for children to come in contact
with the unpleasant things of life; in the second, parents should always
be to their children models of conduct and of disposition. They should
in themselves present ideals to their children. A man should be a hero
to his son; a woman an ideal to her daughter. Why is no man a hero to
his valet? It is simply because his valet sees him, as do not those
whose esteem he desires to win, in his off moments. Children should
never see their parents in their off moments.
This principle was not Rosalie’s alone. It is the modern principle. The
point, to Rosalie, was that, by her way of life, she was able to apply
it. Children were too much with their parents. That was the fault;
in her childhood the universal fault, even now the fault among the
unenlightened. Parents, being human, must have off moments; are not off
moments, indeed, in the total of the day, of greater sum than moments
of circumspection? It follows that if children are always with their
parents, the more unlovely side cannot fail to be perceived, and,
arising out of it, must follow injury by example, harm by environment,
smirching of idealism, loss of respect. In those homes where the mother
(in Rosalie’s phrase) is the children’s slave, why has the father the
children’s greater respect? Why is it fine to do what father does? Why
jolly and exciting to be with father? It is only because the father
commonly is away all day, only seen by them when, shedding other
affairs, he comes to see them specially.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account