can you see lizzie as a wife and mother?
thats a little to weird for my bloood. She never struck me as the marrying kind.
piture this lizzie as a house wife
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
snokkums
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Robin
- Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
- Contact:
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:14 am
- Real Name:
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
-
snokkums
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Robin
- Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
- Contact:
wife and mother
I never did think of it that way. It just seems strange to me that she would get married and have kids. She just always seem "off" to me.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I've been kind of pondering this topic.
In this day and age we have somewhat of an understanding of the family dynamics and we've found that a dysfunctional family will, odds are, produce a dysfunctional individual. If the parents are not involved with the child, are distant, or abusive, then the offspring will suffer from that and it can affect them as adults- causing the cycle of abuse to repeat itself.
A child who sees or knows no parental love/affection will not effectivley know how to love their own offspring. If the parent(s) is abusive, then the child may likely be abusive. A child will learn what they live.
If we think that Andrew and Abby were distant and/or abusive, I think it's a stretch to assume Lizzie would know how to love another, either husband or child, in a healthy or nurturing way.
If Lizzie was a killer, of course we would realize this more readily.
Some may think the Borden family was vastly dysfunctional, and if so, I don't see how it can be supposed that the children turned out capable of loving adult relationships. I don't think these girls knew how to be that way, and that might be why I still call them *girls* and maybe why they remained unmarried.
A man come courting might sense this about her (them). Or after the dominant male in the fasmily died, they each might not have been so keen on marrying and putting themselves willingly under another man's domination. In those days, that might be considered selfish- in these days that might be considered selfish- selfish meaning putting oneself first. Someone who has lived their life putting themselves first does not sound like a good candidate for adjusting to motherhood.
In this day and age we have somewhat of an understanding of the family dynamics and we've found that a dysfunctional family will, odds are, produce a dysfunctional individual. If the parents are not involved with the child, are distant, or abusive, then the offspring will suffer from that and it can affect them as adults- causing the cycle of abuse to repeat itself.
A child who sees or knows no parental love/affection will not effectivley know how to love their own offspring. If the parent(s) is abusive, then the child may likely be abusive. A child will learn what they live.
If we think that Andrew and Abby were distant and/or abusive, I think it's a stretch to assume Lizzie would know how to love another, either husband or child, in a healthy or nurturing way.
If Lizzie was a killer, of course we would realize this more readily.
Some may think the Borden family was vastly dysfunctional, and if so, I don't see how it can be supposed that the children turned out capable of loving adult relationships. I don't think these girls knew how to be that way, and that might be why I still call them *girls* and maybe why they remained unmarried.
A man come courting might sense this about her (them). Or after the dominant male in the fasmily died, they each might not have been so keen on marrying and putting themselves willingly under another man's domination. In those days, that might be considered selfish- in these days that might be considered selfish- selfish meaning putting oneself first. Someone who has lived their life putting themselves first does not sound like a good candidate for adjusting to motherhood.
-
Angel
- Posts: 2189
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:32 pm
- Real Name:
I cannot agree that Lizzie would have been a good wife and mother. I also think something was "off" with her. She probably would have considered her "wifely duty" to be endured as torture. I wouldn't be surprised if she had been schizophrenic. I get the feeling she would have been one of those mothers who'd get a psychotic post partum depression and drown her children.
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:14 am
- Real Name:
-
Nancie
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:15 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: New Jersey
well stated Kat, yet Lizzie did have some sort of
loving relationship with her Father (the ring, the trip
abroad, the Ferry St. house..) and love from Emma.
I'm out of my league to attempt talking psychology
but I do know dysfunctional families, (almost everyone is from one!) But most offspring survive
just fine without killing anyone. Angel, I don't understand what you mean by Lizzie was "off"?
loving relationship with her Father (the ring, the trip
abroad, the Ferry St. house..) and love from Emma.
I'm out of my league to attempt talking psychology
but I do know dysfunctional families, (almost everyone is from one!) But most offspring survive
just fine without killing anyone. Angel, I don't understand what you mean by Lizzie was "off"?
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
It has been pretty much accepted in this case, that if Lizzie did not do it, then she knew who did. The experts at the time believed this was the least of her involvement in these crimes. Her motive would seem to be then that she was protecting someone else and taking the fall. If she was protecting someone she was accessory, under the law, and therefore guilty. There is a defect in her somewhere- not of loyalty- but of character and morality. It's not hard to give money if you have it and it's not hard to lavish what love one has on dumb animals. I just don't think that proves anything.
That defect might be what others call *off.*
That defect might be what others call *off.*
-
Allen
- Posts: 3409
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
I myself do not believe that Lizzie would've made either a good wife, or a good mother. If Emma, who I have no doubt loved her, labeled her as "queer", that seems the best evidence of her character to me. Lizzie to me seemed the type to think about only what Lizzie wanted, and what was best for Lizzie. Kat has a point, if one has a lot of money, it is not hard to give it. Charitable acts also added to one's good standing in the eyes of the community, as it does now. It did not necessarily have to be given as a heart felt gesture, it could have been to try and get into the good graces of Fall River. I myself have no doubt about her love of animals. But lets face it, animals are far less emotionally demanding than people.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:14 am
- Real Name:
It was reported that Lizzie was generous when Andrew was alive and she was on a limited budget with her (albeit generous by some standards) allowance.
As per "giving"....
For YEARS I have been the president of my local chapter of The Junior League...
We do many fund raising activities per year.... It has always been my experience that the more financially secure give a MUCH less generous percentage of their income. They also tend to give more in a give/receive situation. They are much more likely to come to a $500 a plate fancy dinner then they are to give $100 in a cash donation. If there is no tax incentive they seldom give.
We raised in excess of $140K in 2004. 66% of this came from households who's combined NET income was less than $50,000.00 27% from familes who made more than 50K but less than 100K and 5% from those who made over 100K per year. The remaining 2% fell into the margin of error category.
The average median income in this community is about $76,000. This does not speak well of my fortunate friends and neighbors.
My entire married life I have been involved with charity work and volunteerism. If I have learned anything I have learned that the rich didn't get that way by giving it away!
Interesting fact: The most generous in my community? The Hispanics.
Thayne's billing clerk will tell you that she has to re-bill the people with the best insurance and the lowest deductables more often than she does the ones who have NO insurance and who make regular monthly payments...
As per "giving"....
For YEARS I have been the president of my local chapter of The Junior League...
We do many fund raising activities per year.... It has always been my experience that the more financially secure give a MUCH less generous percentage of their income. They also tend to give more in a give/receive situation. They are much more likely to come to a $500 a plate fancy dinner then they are to give $100 in a cash donation. If there is no tax incentive they seldom give.
We raised in excess of $140K in 2004. 66% of this came from households who's combined NET income was less than $50,000.00 27% from familes who made more than 50K but less than 100K and 5% from those who made over 100K per year. The remaining 2% fell into the margin of error category.
The average median income in this community is about $76,000. This does not speak well of my fortunate friends and neighbors.
My entire married life I have been involved with charity work and volunteerism. If I have learned anything I have learned that the rich didn't get that way by giving it away!
Interesting fact: The most generous in my community? The Hispanics.
Thayne's billing clerk will tell you that she has to re-bill the people with the best insurance and the lowest deductables more often than she does the ones who have NO insurance and who make regular monthly payments...
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:14 am
- Real Name:
I FIRMLY believe that animals are the best judge of character....Allen @ Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:56 pm wrote: I myself have no doubt about her love of animals. But lets face it, animals are far less emotionally demanding than people.
If it is true that the squirrels in Lizzie's yard would come right up to her... it may well be one of the best indicators we have of Lizzie's character... Which, I feel compelled to add was UNIMPEACHABLE prior to the furor of the murders and her subsequent trial.
-
Allen
- Posts: 3409
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I have a (maybe naive) view of actual charitable works and the gifting of money from those who can least afford it as a humbling sacrifice of time and personal resources. Those who are involved physically in the community's good works, who are on the front lines (say your activities, Audrey, and your brother) are humble when they provide. It's a selfless giving with no want of a thank-you or recognition.
Maybe Lizbeth gave in this way anonymously, but her contributions to her servants and their families and college funding to them as well were to her personal favorites. They knew from whom the money came. If she paid the Dr. bill for a servant, they knew who paid that bill. I think any regular person who had lots of money would probably do the same, if they had no family. It seemed to me Lizbeth was buying devotion, buying loyalty. Because she thinks that way.. Because you don't think that way, maybe you can't see it? Lizbeth used her Father's blood money to give away- she didn't reach too deep for that either.
Even when she helped out charitably with *overages* according to Mrs. Holmes out of her allowence, before the crimes, that was still her Father's money. Anything she gave other than her own time came from Andrew.
Her own time she gave to socially acceptable charities before the murders, but I am convinced she had an ulterior motive. I think she wanted out of the house. I think she saw a way to meet more socially prominent people by joining the Church in 1885 and getting involved in things. She started very late in life, at that, 1890 being a banner year. She's 30 years old at that time.
I also think of the old adage "Charity Begins At Home" and I don't see Lizzie being charitable at home. I see her snubbing her stepmother, complaining about her around town, refusing to eat with her, and probably making Abby's life rather miserable. Mrs. Whitehead said she thought the girls felt above her, that they didn't like her and thus she rarely went to Abby's house.
Stories of Lizzie's behavior to her relatives make her sound selfish and snobbish.
The sisters of Abby had to file suit before they could get anything from those girls upon Abby's death. Yes, charity begins at home I believe.
Maybe Lizbeth gave in this way anonymously, but her contributions to her servants and their families and college funding to them as well were to her personal favorites. They knew from whom the money came. If she paid the Dr. bill for a servant, they knew who paid that bill. I think any regular person who had lots of money would probably do the same, if they had no family. It seemed to me Lizbeth was buying devotion, buying loyalty. Because she thinks that way.. Because you don't think that way, maybe you can't see it? Lizbeth used her Father's blood money to give away- she didn't reach too deep for that either.
Even when she helped out charitably with *overages* according to Mrs. Holmes out of her allowence, before the crimes, that was still her Father's money. Anything she gave other than her own time came from Andrew.
Her own time she gave to socially acceptable charities before the murders, but I am convinced she had an ulterior motive. I think she wanted out of the house. I think she saw a way to meet more socially prominent people by joining the Church in 1885 and getting involved in things. She started very late in life, at that, 1890 being a banner year. She's 30 years old at that time.
I also think of the old adage "Charity Begins At Home" and I don't see Lizzie being charitable at home. I see her snubbing her stepmother, complaining about her around town, refusing to eat with her, and probably making Abby's life rather miserable. Mrs. Whitehead said she thought the girls felt above her, that they didn't like her and thus she rarely went to Abby's house.
Stories of Lizzie's behavior to her relatives make her sound selfish and snobbish.
The sisters of Abby had to file suit before they could get anything from those girls upon Abby's death. Yes, charity begins at home I believe.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Audrey, have you read "The Theory And Lizzie Borden" by Alexander Woollcott? The sub-title is: "O. Henry Sends a Sheriff to Snoop Around an Old Murder Mystery."
It is based on the O. Henry story ("The Theory and the Hound") which offers his (o. Henry's) solid belief that a man can love a dog yet kill a woman.
" 'Hound-lover and woman-killer!' he cried: 'get ready to meet your God' " as he snapped the handcuffs on. ..." 'I'm a Kentuckian,' he said as the boat put out to sea, 'and I've seen a great deal of both men and animals. And I never yet saw a man that was overfond of horses and dogs but what was cruel to women.' "
The story is about a test the sheriff makes to catch the killer he is after when he has to choose betwen 2 men who are similar in appearance and he needs to figure out who his culprit is. He kicks the dog, and the guilty fellow takes umbrage!
The author (Woollcott) goes on to say he doesn't necessarily believe this theory but that it was "a standard" one of the day. Woollcott wrote this in 1927, Vanity Fair, [Sept. 29].
This doesn't prove anything, but it's an interesting way of looking at something a bit differently.
It is based on the O. Henry story ("The Theory and the Hound") which offers his (o. Henry's) solid belief that a man can love a dog yet kill a woman.
" 'Hound-lover and woman-killer!' he cried: 'get ready to meet your God' " as he snapped the handcuffs on. ..." 'I'm a Kentuckian,' he said as the boat put out to sea, 'and I've seen a great deal of both men and animals. And I never yet saw a man that was overfond of horses and dogs but what was cruel to women.' "
The story is about a test the sheriff makes to catch the killer he is after when he has to choose betwen 2 men who are similar in appearance and he needs to figure out who his culprit is. He kicks the dog, and the guilty fellow takes umbrage!
The author (Woollcott) goes on to say he doesn't necessarily believe this theory but that it was "a standard" one of the day. Woollcott wrote this in 1927, Vanity Fair, [Sept. 29].
This doesn't prove anything, but it's an interesting way of looking at something a bit differently.
-
theebmonique
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:08 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracy Townsend
- Location: Ogden, Utah
Audrey, I too, firmly believe that Lizzie would have been a good wife and mother. I think part of what some may feel as her 'offness' was her wanting to love and be loved, but not knowing exactly how. She never had the chance to truly receive "a mother's love", as her time with Sarah was so brief. But what she did get from Sarah was that she knew that love existed. Emma, bless her heart, tried to mother Lizzie as best she could. But with Abby coming into their lives so quickly (relatively) after Sarah's passing, the bond just never had a chance to fully blossom. I am sure Abby tried, but for some reason, the 'motherly' connection just wasn't there. It isn't anyone's fault. It's just happens that way sometimes.
I would much rather be around someone who cared deeply for animals, as it seems Lizzie did, than someone who has no use for them. I believe animals are some of the most loyal, honest, trustworthy, and intuitive companions. For me, my 3 giant dogs, are my children. The bond is very emotional.
Tracy...
I would much rather be around someone who cared deeply for animals, as it seems Lizzie did, than someone who has no use for them. I believe animals are some of the most loyal, honest, trustworthy, and intuitive companions. For me, my 3 giant dogs, are my children. The bond is very emotional.
Tracy...
I'm defying gravity and you can't pull me down.
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:14 am
- Real Name:
-
Pippi
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:56 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: WA, USA raised in CT
- Contact:
While generally I agree children learn what they live, I have to say I know quite a few wonderful people who were tortured as children, survived, had scars emotional and physical and still raised loving children and were themselves some of the most loving and loyal friends a person could ever ask for on this Earth.Kat @ Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:14 am wrote:I've been kind of pondering this topic.
A child who sees or knows no parental love/affection will not effectivley know how to love their own offspring. If the parent(s) is abusive, then the child may likely be abusive. A child will learn what they live.
If we think that Andrew and Abby were distant and/or abusive, I think it's a stretch to assume Lizzie would know how to love another, either husband or child, in a healthy or nurturing way.
I believe that it is possible to act negatively out of abuse and still be a kind soul to others. IMHO
-
Allen
- Posts: 3409
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
My father in law also lays out corn for the deer.The deer learn that the corn is there, and they become accustomed to it being there.They will come in to eat it whether my father- in -law is there or not.They become accustomed to him also. They will come in to feed while he is there.It does not stop him from shooting one in deer season.I do not see how the squirrels coming in for a guaranteed meal speaks of her character.Audrey @ Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:06 pm wrote:Allen @ Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:56 pm wrote: If it is true that the squirrels in Lizzie's yard would come right up to her... it may well be one of the best indicators we have of Lizzie's character... Which, I feel compelled to add was UNIMPEACHABLE prior to the furor of the murders and her subsequent trial.
When I said that pets/animals are less emotionally demanding, I believe they are.There is a big difference between being an animal lover, and a people person. If she got along with pets/animals and was loving and caring towards them, it is because all you have to do is feed them, show them affection, give them a place to sleep, play with them a bit, and they will love you.I love animals myself, but I realize they are far less demanding than humans. Someone who loves animals does not necessarily always have what it takes to relate to humans in the same way.A cat for an example:
You do not carry a cat for nine months and give birth to it, or breast feed it.You do not have to change a cats soiled diaper,or get up in the middle of the night to feed a crying cat. You do not have to teach a cat to talk, walk, read, spell, write, mathematics, about sex, about "monthlies",about puberty, and basically everything there is to know about being a cat and about interacting with other cats or give them advice about boys/girls,. You do not have to be patient when they ask you a million "Why's?" in a row. Or explain to them what is polite and not polite to do in front of company. You do not have to teach a cat how to wash its hair,brush its teeth,and make sure it uses soap when it takes a bath. You do not have to talk to them about why a person made fun of them, or doesn't like them.There are hundreds of things that a parent must do for their child, or a wife for her husband, that are not even remotely required in taking care of a pet. I cannot,in my opinion, have seen Lizzie doing any of these things.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Pippi @ Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:33 am wrote:While generally I agree children learn what they live, I have to say I know quite a few wonderful people who were tortured as children, survived, had scars emotional and physical and still raised loving children and were themselves some of the most loving and loyal friends a person could ever ask for on this Earth. I believe that it is possible to act negatively out of abuse and still be a kind soul to others.Kat @ Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:14 am wrote:I've been kind of pondering this topic.
A child who sees or knows no parental love/affection will not effectivley know how to love their own offspring. If the parent(s) is abusive, then the child may likely be abusive. A child will learn what they live.
If we think that Andrew and Abby were distant and/or abusive, I think it's a stretch to assume Lizzie would know how to love another, either husband or child, in a healthy or nurturing way.
The difference here, which I would like to be more clear about, is I am discussing a person who was embroiled in a double murder, a long incarceration and a long, stressful trial for a life or death sentence.
I'm not comparing Lizzie to other non-violent victims of abuse who somehow made it to adulthood and managed to come out relatively whole, but also minus this outrageous accusation, coverage in the newspapers, and infamous notriety.
To me, the defining and determining factor in the life of Lizzie Borden is just this accusation and just this terrible slaughter.
Unless these *abuseSurviors* faced these things, I can't compare them, and I don't.
-
Pippi
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:56 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: WA, USA raised in CT
- Contact:
and often don't. I don't. I can raise a dog, I can rehab a rescue dog with severe issues that no one else would handle....and I can stay relatively calm through the whole thing. Humans on the other hand, my fuse is much shorter. My DH doesn't listen or train as quickly as my dogs and rabbits.There is a big difference between being an animal lover, and a people person.......all you have to do is feed them, show them affection, give them a place to sleep, play with them a bit, and they will love you.I love animals myself, but I realize they are far less demanding than humans. Someone who loves animals does not necessarily always have what it takes to relate to humans in the same way.
I could never make it through raising a kid...said child would be the death of me. Well Said Allen. While I agree that animals are generally a good sense of character, especially one of mine in particular, but she still has the habit of falling for that big hunky guy who will play with her even if he is one of the most abusive people to other people. As long as he is happy with her she's happy. Unless she saw him in a fit hurting someone she would be looking for the love. Granted I don't think my dog has met any murderers, just inmates and people who should be inmates :( I have a feeling if the murderer didn't act like a murderer all the time my dog would love them :(
-
Nancie
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:15 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: New Jersey
all of these posts are interesting and each has
something true to add, thanks. I go by my simple
gut/heart feeling that Lizzie just didn't have it in her
to commit those brutal slayings. ("I do not do things in a hurry..") The animal discussion is also
interesting, my dog was abused when I got her 5 yrs ago, she still runs under the bed when I pick up
a hairbrush to comb my hair and even freaks out at
the male-voice from my computer "You've got Mail".
Any animal (humans inc) who has been abused will show a "cowering" type of demeanor somehow,depending on the degree. I sure don't see this in Lizzie. She has a calm and confident aura.
something true to add, thanks. I go by my simple
gut/heart feeling that Lizzie just didn't have it in her
to commit those brutal slayings. ("I do not do things in a hurry..") The animal discussion is also
interesting, my dog was abused when I got her 5 yrs ago, she still runs under the bed when I pick up
a hairbrush to comb my hair and even freaks out at
the male-voice from my computer "You've got Mail".
Any animal (humans inc) who has been abused will show a "cowering" type of demeanor somehow,depending on the degree. I sure don't see this in Lizzie. She has a calm and confident aura.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Yes, these are all good points by everyone. It's an interesting topic.
I am thinking now about extending your point about something abused shying away from a raised voice or hand- I think it can also be true that a person with the least amount of self-esteem (from being downtrodden their whole life) can turn into the biggest bully. I think it can go either way.
Not that Lizzie was a bully- but I think the behaviors as a result of abuse can also fall somewhere in between. So far we've discussed extremes.
I am thinking now about extending your point about something abused shying away from a raised voice or hand- I think it can also be true that a person with the least amount of self-esteem (from being downtrodden their whole life) can turn into the biggest bully. I think it can go either way.
Not that Lizzie was a bully- but I think the behaviors as a result of abuse can also fall somewhere in between. So far we've discussed extremes.