Poor Moll

So the other day I was reading “Moll Flanders” by Daniel Defoe. I still am because it’s a hard read for me.

In the story the start of Moll’s Ruin (old English writers tend to capitalize everything) begins with a secret affair with the elder brother of the reputable household she is working in. Now it all starts with the elder brother (we’ll call him the Gentleman) sneaking up to her and confessing his love for her. Young and innocent Moll can do nothing but succumb to this new and foreign fiery passion called Love that she has never experienced. Now this happens regularly and eventually he comes up with a plan for them to meet secretly and he takes her virginity. With words of passion he tells her how much he loves her and that when he is given his Estate (inheritance from his father) he will marry her. To Moll she is now engaged.

But things start to get complicated when the younger brother also professes his love for her and even proposes Moll. Poor Moll doesn’t know what to do, because in her mind her heart and reputation has already been given to another man. But when the Gent hears of it he urges Moll to marry his brother and put matters of their secret affair behind her. If she does so, she will become her husband’s brother’s whore. If she doesn’t, she will have to explain herself and thus ruin both her and the Gent’s reputation, and so she falls ill.

What is she to do? Either way she is doomed. As for the man, all he needs to care about is his Honour. It is Moll who has to deal with the fact that she has been deceived by thinking she would be wife, and now she is heading to Ruin. It is so much easier for a man to save himself than a woman, in those times. Is it wrong then, for a woman to appear so devastated when a man shows he can detach himself from her emotionally without a word of warning. So devastated, in fact, that people categorize it as female hysteria during the Victorian era. A famous case would be the case of Marie de Morell (I won’t go into detail about it here).

Over the dinner table, I had a discussion with my mom about the Moll Flanders case, and I asked whether it was the man’s fault. Obviously it was wrong of him to make such a cruel decision, but given the context of the novel, no man in their right mind would give up their honour and dignity, even when they do love their women deeply.

Sighing, my mom said that even though times have changed and women have gained much more financial independence, the injustice still persists in marriage.

Say a man and a woman marries and have children. Both have jobs and work hard to provide for the kids. Eventually the dad begins to desire a more peaceful environment after coming home from work, while the mom still has to cook for the kids and help them with schoolwork.

My first question is this: why does a dad get to go for happy hours after work while a mom has to rush home to take care of the kids? Is it really because the mother has greater love for the kids, or is it simply because it is socially expected for women to attend to domestic duties?

Eventually the mom quits the job to work in the household full-time (which is not uncommon here in Hong Kong). So now not only does she have to give up her income, she is also giving up her only chance to socialize. She has confined herself to the house.

And what if, what if the dad gets into an affair elsewhere and divorces the mum? Obviously you get your fair share of money, but what then after that? In most cases the mum will be obliged to take care of the children (or child), because it is she that has spent the most time with them. But how is she going to provide for the kids with no job and a limited connection because she has been living at home for the past years? And who is going to hire her at the age of say forty–or even fifty? In an era that is looking for young and creative minds, you don’t stand much of a chance against the constantly changing trends.

I know it’s a long stretch from Moll Flanders’ case, and I do admit that we have come far to minimize cases of female hysteria, but the truth is this injustice still persists, and it will require more than the amendment of laws to eradicate that. It will require a change of mindset, which I have no idea how.

The hypothetical situation I described above CAN actually be seen in a lot of families in Hong Kong, and a lot of what is keeping marriages together is simply the traditional mindset of what a family should be. That doesn’t mean freedom of the women; it doesn’t constitute her independence. I don’t think independence means to be free of men, but to be able to enjoy as much as a man can and still be able to hold up a marriage.

Your opinions would be highly valued as this is only an elaboration of a thought I have. I humbly accept any form of decent criticism.

Oh, and I inserted a photo of Robin Wright starring as Moll in the 1996 movie instead of a painting from the Enlightenment Period because it’s more relatable.

Also because she’s hot.