All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love

[solotrek]

Given that straight-arrow Richard still seemed quite proud of his own nude Yale days some decades later, I would wager they would likely have a "boys will be boys" philosophy when it came to hijinks - no matter how moronic such shenanigans might be.

Don't forget the one where he and his friends didn't like someone in the dorm, so they sandwiched him between mattresses and threw him out the window every night for a month until he transferred.

[Eeksquire]

I know, I know.  I think my adoration for Richard Hermann substantially colors my view of Richard.

[txhorns79]

Don't forget the one where he and his friends didn't like someone in the dorm, so they sandwiched him between mattresses and threw him out the window every night for a month until he transferred.

 

I think Richard would be fine with pranks, but probably would not be okay with what must have been several hundred thousand dollars or (maybe millions depending on how nice a ship it was) worth of damage when that yacht was sunk.   

[Melancholy]

Well, I don't think Mitchum was entirely "fine" and "boys will boys" about Logan's hijinks. Mitchum was just too busy and distant to really get in there and consistently discipline Logan other than what Logan perceived was one of their two main types of the communication- (1) "Logan, you're not living up to your potential and (2) sailing small-talk. Mitchum was also too committed to Logan as the heir apparent for the future and you know, despite all of the backwashing, genuinely loved his son, to let Logan sink because of his misdeeds so Mitchum bailed out Logan with money, legal help, etc. 

 

I don't get the impression that any of these fathers from Mitchum to Straub to Richard were really involved in forming their offsprings' character as children. It seemed like it was '50s style hands-off parenting where the children were shaped by their mother, nannies, and fancy private schools and those institutions were supposed to deliver well-mannered Ivy League bound late-high school young adults to their fathers to be placed in prestigious business as perfect mini-adults. But the system failed time and time again. In a twisted way, that system actually only seemed to really work with regard to Richard's grand-parenting of Rory. 

 

I actually can't picture how Emily would handle a son. She really did seem like the kind of mother who'd take less crap from any gender than Shira or Francine who both seemed profoundly weak and stupid (on their admittedly verrrry short screen-time appearances). However, so much of Emily's interest in offspring felt like this strangely childish desire for a Chanel n' pearls mini-me. I have trouble picturing her having the generosity and ability to step outside of herself to care about a little boy's typical hobbies- but she'd freak if the boy was a non-gender conforming. However, I also can't picture Emily ceding control of her own child entirely. Hard to say. I think Emily is quite Betty Draperish- I guess Emily would raise sons like Betty was raising Bobby. 

 

I think a son would have mucked up Lorelei's story too. I think Lorelai would have tried with a boy- but it hardly would have been as idyllic a story if Lorelai didn't get a pretty girl mini-me as a daughter.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Melancholy

[Taryn74]

I think a son would have mucked up Lorelei's story too. I think Lorelai would have tried with a boy- but it hardly would have been as idyllic a story if Lorelai didn't get a pretty girl mini-me as a daughter.

 

Interesting thought.  How WOULD Lorelai have been, as a parent, if Rory had been a boy?

[dustylil]

How WOULD Lorelai have been, as a parent, if Rory had been a boy?

 

I think she would have been just fine. She herself certainly wasn't a shy bookish brainiac, but she had no problem in raising one. And took great joy in the process.

I have a related question, how would Christopher have been as a parent if Rory had been a boy? More involved because he could more easily relate to a son?

[Melancholy]

In this hypothetical to make it a true mirror, I am imagining a gifted, easy to discipline handsome boy who's still as traditionally masculine as Rory was traditionally feminine which is quite masculine. I think Lorelai would have been a wonderful, loving, caring mother to that kind of boy. She's just inherently a great mom- committed to to the task, inventive, firm but so filled with love and commitment to her kid, charismatic and smart enough that she can easily command respect.

 

However, IMO, Lorelai and a son would be a little less BFF 5evah. Lorelai would have been more bored at going to sporting events or hearing about engineering feats, even if she'd do it out of obligation, and it would dim the enthusiasm. I think it'd create some weird differing reactions in how Lorelai disciplined. Like, I don't think she'd flip nearly as much if her son was out all night with a girl after the school dance as with Rory. Lorelai isn't out to protect other kids, and she'd be calmer if *her* kid couldn't be knocked up. However, I think Lorelai was able to automatically build narratives that Rory was the passive damsel along for the ride when she got into accidents and trouble that Lorelai, IMO, wouldn't with a son. She'd discipline more harshly, IMO, assuming that her son had to come up with the yacht theft or should be a boy with the balls to make sure that his car isn't crashed unless he was ALSO into the perceived dangerous joyriding with his bad-girl crush. 

Edited December 25, 2015 by Melancholy

[txhorns79]

Like, I don't think she'd flip nearly as much if her son was out all night with a girl after the school dance as with Rory. Lorelai isn't out to protect other kids, and she'd be calmer if *her* kid couldn't be knocked up.

 

I'd disagree.  She put very high stock on the idea that she would be a "better" parent than Richard or Emily.  If the high school age, out of wedlock pregnancy repeated itself where she was the parent, it would put the lie to everything Lorelai has told herself about Emily and Richard's parenting over the years.  Also, it probably would be personally devastating for Lorelai, if only because it would reopen all the trauma she associated with her teenage years. 

[Melancholy]

I'd disagree.  She put very high stock on the idea that she would be a "better" parent than Richard or Emily.  If the high school age, out of wedlock pregnancy repeated itself where she was the parent, it would put the lie to everything Lorelai has told herself about Emily and Richard's parenting over the years.  Also, it probably would be personally devastating for Lorelai, if only because it would reopen all the trauma she associated with her teenage years. 

 

But it wouldn't be as dangerous if Lorelai had a son. Teenage girls and their parents need to be far more careful about unplanned pregnancies than teenage boys and their parents in today's world. It's just the way that the world is set-up. Even modern, feminist parents are a lot more controlling and easily angered about their daughter's sexuality than their son's because they know that it will absolutely be their problem if their girl is knocked up while there's a pretty good chance that if their son impregnates a girl, it won't ever really be their son's trauma or burden to abort or carry the child to term for adoption or it won't even possibly be the son's responsibility if the girl decides to raise their child. There are some parents who really do hold their sons fully and preemptively responsible for their sexualities to the same extent as girls for gender parity- but IMO, they are a minority and it wouldn't include Lorelai who pointedly does not really care about another child's problems if it diverts adoring attention for her kid for a millisecond (Jess post-accident, Lindsay). 

 

If Rory was Robert and he stayed out all night at a school dance, I think Lorelai would be more,

 

Lorelai: Jesus Chris, Robert! You were supposed to get home last night, why are you wandering here in the morning?

 

Robert: I lost track of time. I'm sorry- Diana got home. 

 

Lorelai: Don't let it happen again....want breakfast? 

Edited December 25, 2015 by Melancholy

[txhorns79]

But it wouldn't be as dangerous if Lorelai had a son. Teenage girls and their parents need to be far more careful about unplanned pregnancies than teenage boys and their parents in today's world. It's just the way that the world is set-up.

 

Maybe as a general rule, but with a family like Lorelai's where her getting pregnant as a teen was a hugely traumatizing event for everyone, I don't believe for a moment that Lorelai wouldn't be on constant guard for that, regardless of the sex of her child. 

[dustylil]

it wouldn't include Lorelai who pointedly does not really care about another child's problems if it diverts adoring attention for her kid for a millisecond

 

I don't think that is quite true. She didn't leave New York City after The Bangles concert and let Madeleine and Louise find their own way  home. She literally went door-to-door to search for them and then read them the riot act. After that, she apparently spoke to their parents about their conduct. If she was only concerned about Rory I doubt she would have bothered to do all that.

[shron17]

There are some parents who really do hold their sons fully and preemptively responsible for their sexualities to the same extent as girls for gender parity- but IMO, they are a minority and it wouldn't include Lorelai who pointedly does not really care about another child's problems if it diverts adoring attention for her kid for a millisecond (Jess post-accident, Lindsay).

 

I don't think for a minute that if Lorelai had a son and he got a girl pregnant she wouldn't hold him fully responsible.  Despite Straub and Francine's opinion and Christopher's lack of support, Lorelai knew better than anyone that Chris was every bit as responsible for her pregnancy as she was.  And I think any parent who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy is extra vigilant about making sure it doesn't happen to their child, male or female.  Do you really think it's less hurtful to know you have a grandchild who may never be allowed to know you and your son than deal with a daughter's pregnancy? 

Edited December 26, 2015 by shron17

[dustylil]

Teenage girls and their parents need to be far more careful about unplanned pregnancies than teenage boys and their parents in today's world.

 

Haven't teenage girls and their parents always needed to be far more vigilant, not just in today's world? Decades ago adolescent girls usually had to leave school and sometimes their own communities when their pregnancies became known. And at least nowadays there are DNA paternity tests to eliminate those  he said/she said  situations. The other evening I  re-watched the British film Philomena, based on real life events. It starred  Judi Dench as an elderly woman searching for the son who was wrenched from her after a teenage pregnancy in the early nineteen fifties. Quite heart-breaking.

 

And what shron17 said.

[photo fox]

I'm no Lorelai fan - in fact, I dislike her most of the time. But I can't imagine, given her personal history, that she would have a laissez-faire attitude about her son getting someone pregnant. I know society sadly often holds the female half of a pregnant teen couple more responsible, but I don't think L would, ever.

[Smad]

And I think any parent who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy is extra vigilant about making sure it doesn't happen to their child, male or female.

Don't bet on it. I'm speaking from personal experience and that's not always the case.

 

As for Lorelai it would have been interesting to see if she would act differently with the boy who got her daughter pregnant than she did with Christopher. If the boy looks like he is going to bail on the situation would she force him to be involved? Would she insist on child support (via the boys parents or when the boy can make a living)? I think she would insist if it was her son getting someone pregnant. I wonder however how she would react about a boy getting her daughter pregnant.

[shron17]

Don't bet on it. I'm speaking from personal experience and that's not always the case.

 

 

Sorry, didn't mean to over-generalize.  I also speak from personal experience but should have phrased it differently.  I would expect that most women who had an unplanned pregnancy would talk to their kids (male or female) a lot more than the average parent about the possibility of this happening to them and wouldn't let a son off the hook any more than a daughter. I also doubt any woman who had been in this position herself would let all of the responsibility fall on the girl involved whether or not it was her daughter .  I agree that Lorelai would definitely hold her son responsible, but think she would support her daughter to do what was best for her but wouldn't necessarily demand anything from the baby's father. 

Edited December 26, 2015 by shron17

[Melancholy]

I don't think that is quite true. She didn't leave New York City after The Bangles concert and let Madeleine and Louise find their own way  home. She literally went door-to-door to search for them and then read them the riot act. After that, she apparently spoke to their parents about their conduct. If she was only concerned about Rory I doubt she would have bothered to do all that.

 

 

Yes, Lorelai did look for Madeline and Louise because she was concerned about them. Then again, I don't think that's SO spectacular. I viewed Lorelai trying to find Madeline and Louise as pretty typical- I just think most people would go to the police and wait in the station until Madeline & Louise and the phoned parents would come which is just as sensible but less dramatic than knocking down doors throughout a sketchy looking building. A parent who left Madeline and Louise out in NY and just sashayed back to Stars Hollow would be inviting a lawsuit and a world of hurt on their own kid at Chilton. 

 

However, I think Lorelai was unusually unable to empathize with another child/young person in pain or to at least, restrain herself and Rory from being the center of attention in how she reacted to Luke worrying about Jess post-car crash or how she didn't let Lindsay's mother speak her piece or treated Rory like she was made out of spun glass instead of forcing Rory to take a harder look at what she was doing to Lindsay. Both incidents really negatively color my view of how Lorelai treats others, especially when it could, in any way, make Rory's life a little less special. 

 

I also stand by that Lorelai would be less vigilant about a son's activities like staying out all night or dating a sexy bad girl type or make pointed "If you take of your belt at the party, I'm not sure I want you coming home" jokes. My parents were awesome - and they totally treated me and my brother differently in this respect. I think Lorelai does subscribe to old-fashioned gender views, without intending it. I recognize Lorelei's "I've got the good kid" comparison between Rory and Paris from...MUCH OF THE WORLD to not put Lorelai with the general population who'd police the sexuality of a daughter far more than a son. 

 

Now if her son actually impregnated a girl, I think Lorelai would stand with a large upstanding portion of the population who'd want her son to cooperate with whatever the girl decided, whether it's respecting an abortion or being a real father to the baby. I do wonder if Lorelai would resent a girl who demanded marriage and/or support from her 16-year old son that could derail his life ala how Lorelai resented Logan/Jess as in, "I raised a good kid and all of a sudden, this bad influence is derailing MY KID'S life." Probably- but the extent would be fact-dependent. 

[dustylil]

I was responding to the comment that Lorelai didn't care about another child's problems in my remarks about what happened after The Bangles concert. No, it wasn't a spectacular thing to do. And presumably she would have called the police had the girls not been found so quickly - through her prompt action. Of course how long the police would have taken to respond to a call about two healthy teenage girls taking off on their own I have no idea. I was simply pointing out that she behaved as any responsible adult might in that kind of situation.

 

I respectfully suggest that Lorelai was not incapable of empathizing with children, other than Rory. She was quite kind to Lane over the years as she struggled against the strictures of her family and faith, even after the friendship between Lane and Roy had cooled. She even attempted to conciliate Lane and her mother after Lane had left home. She was also nice to Paris, Rory's frenemy. I don't recall any other adult - parent or otherwise -  taking any amount of interest in young people.

 

I entirely agree that Lorelai handled the car crash badly - bordering on absurdly. That said, she did allow Rory to date Jess so she was able to overcome her distaste for the little putz.

 

As to Lindsay's mother, I am not sure what else exactly Lorelai could have done. It is not as if she had in any way condoned the affair. And she had made her opinion on the subject quite clear to Rory. Theresa - who certainly had every right to be angry - was bellowing in the middle of the town square (I thought she was channelling Emily) on a sad and private matter.  Lorelai  for the most part  was trying to calm the situation down and bring it to an end, which to me anyway seemed like the most sensible thing to do.

 

As well, Lindsay's mother  was blaming Rory for what happened. As I don't recall Dean being lured into Rory's room and Miss Patty's studio, hog-tied and Rory having her way with him, I could understand Lorelai's annoyance.

 

And finally, this really was not a matter for the two mothers to deal with - however understandably strong their feelings and opinions. It was an issue that should have been addressed by Dean, Lindsay and Rory. Of course, having said all that, I don't believe for a moment that Lorelai  would have behaved any better than Theresa had Rory been the wronged party.

Edited December 27, 2015 by dustylil

[txhorns79]

She was quite kind to Lane over the years as she struggled against the strictures of her family and faith, even after the friendship between Lane and Roy had cooled. She even attempted to conciliate Lane and her mother after Lane had left home. She was also nice to Paris, Rory's frenemy. I don't recall any other adult - parent or otherwise -  taking any amount of interest in young people.

 

What would "taking any amount of interest in young people" mean?  For example, Richard stepped in to lead Rory's group on its economics project.  Richard obviously also taught a course at Yale.  I think Emily led that event at the Dragonfly to teach young girls about etiquette.  Those events would all seem to indicate Richard and Emily took "an interest in young people."     

[Melancholy]

I was trying to assess whether Lorelai would have the super-ego levels necessary to hold a hypothetical son to his hypothetical pregnancy because it's his responsibility to others, even if it makes his life uncomfortable. I was making a point that Lorelai put Rory first above any other kid, when there was the tiniest bit of controversy even if conventional morals and discipline as opposed to UBER-affection to Rory would actually mandate that Lorelai take a chill pill and let Rory sleep in the bed that she made. I wasn't assessing whether Lorelai was capable of making pleasant conversation with Paris or whether she'd act like a reasonable adult, unlikely to be sued, and not saddle out of NY without the two minors she was charged with. 

 

And yes, when there was a conflict between allowing Luke to be concerned about his nephew's safety and Lorelai making it SUPER CLEAR that Rory was the biggest most angelic victim here and Jess should be punished because the crash had to be all of his fault, Lorelai did not pick the former. 

 

I think Theresa had a right to bellow in the town square, as much as Lindsay had a right to publicly chuck out Dean's stuff. I agree that Lorelai would pull a Theresa if Rory was in Lindsay's shoes- and I'd think Lorelai would be right. I think Lorelai was in the right to publicly yell at Jess in Nag Hammadi, in front of Gypsy and anyone else on that equally public street corner, on behalf of Luke and Rory. You don't have to assume that Lorelai would act like Theresa if Lorelai was in those shoes- Lorelai got as publicly angry to Jess over a MUCH smaller grievance where Rory was only the subliminally wronged party at the time. And I still back Lorelai up there. She was rightfully angry. Jess made a point of being an asshole (even if the viewer could tell that Jess unloaded on Luke that way out of obvious self-loathing and guilt that he let down Luke and now feels responsible which I"m more sympathetic to than Rory's motives to sleep with Dean). Why does Lorelai owe him privacy?

 

If you have a genuine grievance, you have a right to express it. If someone did something as terrible as participate in breaking up your kids' marriage, I don't understand why the parent has to be concerned with The Other Woman's privacy. Lorelai should have Theresa say her piece instead of constantly cutting her off and then afterwards, Lorelai shouldn't have fussed over Rory and ordering her whatever she wanted at Luke's like she was a bullied second grader. Lorelai had her temper-sparked reaction on seeing Rory and Dean just after the act, focusing on what this would do to Rory, but afterwards, Lorelai alarmingly said NOTHING to Rory to make Rory feel responsible for hurting Lindsay or make Rory accountable for how she proceeded in her relationship with Dean. Instead, Lorelai double-dated in the whole mess- to Luke's shock. It was beyond callous on Rory's and Lorelei's part.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Melancholy

[dustylil]

but afterwards, Lorelai alarmingly said NOTHING to Rory to make Rory feel responsible for hurting Lindsay or make Rory accountable for how she proceeded in her relationship with Dean. Instead, Lorelai double-dated in the whole mess- to Luke's shock. It was beyond callous on Rory's and Lorelei's part

 

I think the timeframe is significant here. Theresa's outburst in the town square took place a few months after the Dean and Rory tryst. I am not sure Lorelai rebuking Rory after that length of time would have had much effect. Especially since she had broken things off with Dean by then. I had hoped (forlornly, as it turned out)  the  sight of the distraught Lindsay, a childhood friend,  might have had some impact on the empathy-challenged Rory.  

 

Rory and Dean began to date some time later - after he and Lindsay had  separated.  He had been living back at home with his parents. He  later had  moved to Kyle's by the time of the double-date. Luke may have been shocked because he was unaware of the renewal of the Rory/Dean relationship. But he was in no position to be morally outraged by it. He had just filed for  divorce from Nicole when he began his involvement with Lorelai. 

 

Lorelai did discuss with Luke whether or not he was OK with them going out with Dean and Rory. He said he was. He wasn't forced into it. I fail to see how the double date was beyond callous.

 

I did think Rory and Dean swanning through Stars Hollow while on their  dates was on the tacky side. There was no reason why they couldn't have socialized in New Haven, Hartford or in any of the other small towns around their part of Connecticut to avoid running into Lindsay. To his credit Dean did become uncomfortable with them spending time in  Stars Hollow. Rory of course was oblivious.

Edited December 27, 2015 by dustylil

[txhorns79]

Luke may have been shocked because he was unaware of the renewal of the Rory/Dean relationship. But he was in no position to be morally outraged by it. He had just filed for  divorce from Nicole when he began his involvement with Lorelai.

 

I'm not really following this correlation.  Are you saying that divorce is on par with adultery?  

 

 

Rory of course was oblivious.

 

My guess would be she was oblivious because she didn't live full time in Stars Hollow, and probably saw that Lindsay wasn't on the call sheets for the episodes, so knew it wasn't going to be an issue.  

Edited December 27, 2015 by txhorns79

[shron17]

I also stand by that Lorelai would be less vigilant about a son's activities like staying out all night or dating a sexy bad girl type or make pointed "If you take of your belt at the party, I'm not sure I want you coming home" jokes.

Now if her son actually impregnated a girl, I think Lorelai would stand with a large upstanding portion of the population who'd want her son to cooperate with whatever the girl decided, whether it's respecting an abortion or being a real father to the baby.

 

There's a big hole in between these two statements.  It sounds like you're saying a woman who got pregnant at 15 would be less concerned about the behavior that leads to a teen pregnancy with a son than with a daughter.  I doubt very much Lorelai could ever separate the 15-year-old girl who found herself pregnant from the woman who is now a parent to a son.  Much of the world may indeed police the sexuality of their daughters more than sons, but I have to wonder if any of those parents became a parent for the first time at the age of 16.  I have to think if they had they would be just as concerned about any behavior of their son that could lead to a teen pregnancy and do whatever they could to make him fully aware of the consequences of this behavior.  And though I think Lorelai would encourage her son to support the girl's choice, I imagine knowing the life of a potential grandchild was aborted would be very painful for a woman who chose to joyfully and successfully raise her own baby.

Edited December 27, 2015 by shron17

[txhorns79]

And though I think Lorelai would encourage her son to support the girl's choice, I imagine knowing the life of a potential grandchild was aborted would be very painful for a woman who chose to joyfully and successfully raise her own baby.

 

I'd think even with Lorelai's mostly fantasy life as a teenage, high school drop out single mother with no real money who found a magical job that provided for most of she and her daughter's needs during the early years, she realized her situation was not typical, and would probably be more open to abortion than you'd imagine.  I saw Lorelai as someone almost desperate to prevent a repeat of past mistakes.  I would think, for her, the ultimate failure as a parent would be to end up with a teenage pregnant child, or (if she had a boy) having her child get someone else pregnant.  It may have worked for her as a parent, but there's no way she was going to be one of those 32 or 33 year old grandparents.        

[shron17]

I'd think even with Lorelai's mostly fantasy life as a teenage, high school drop out single mother with no real money who found a magical job that provided for most of she and her daughter's needs during the early years, she realized her situation was not typical, and would probably be more open to abortion than you'd imagine.

 

You may be right, and like I said I do think she'd be open to it at least partially because she knows firsthand how difficult it was.  It just seems that it would be almost impossible not personalize it; e.g. if I had done that Rory/what's-his-name would have never been born.  And the Lorelai we knew obviously felt never having Rory would have been her worst possible future.

Edited December 28, 2015 by shron17

[Melancholy]

There's a big hole in between these two statements.  It sounds like you're saying a woman who got pregnant at 15 would be less concerned about the behavior that leads to a teen pregnancy with a son than with a daughter.  

 

Yes, there's a hole between my statements but it's intentional because it's a hole that mirrors life. Boys and parents of boys can be blissfully clueless and irresponsible about pregnancy in terms of the behavior that leads up to a pregnancy. It's such a frequent reality that girls keep a pregnancy to themselves and deal with it on their own, take a morning after pill after unprotected sex, just privately live with the suspense that the unprotected sex will become a pregnancy and monitor their own menstruation until they're relieved that they weren't impregnated, or end up shouldering most of the burden of a child that boys are completely divorced from the consequence in the behavior leading up to the pregnancy.

 

Now, many of those boys and parents of boys WILL get serious and responsible once the impregnated girl comes to them and reports the issue and makes it the boy's and boy's parents concern. THEN, it becomes a character test and defining moment. However, I think it's typical that in the behavior leading up a pregnancy, an otherwise good parent treats a seemingly promiscuous son like he's just popular and socially well-adjusted but THEN will react responsibly once the girl comes forward with a pregnancy. Again, my brother never had this problem but that's exactly how I saw my parents. 

 

I saw nothing on Lorelei's part that showed she was more vigilant or somehow different than the majority in terms of this gender differences. I did see how Lorelei's pregnancy made her more vigilant and easier to relate to on the struggles that girls go through; I saw no special insight on sexual behavior for boys on Lorelei's part beyond the standard early late90s/early 2000s parent.

 

And I agree with txhorns79 on the abortion issue. 

[shron17]

Boys and parents of boys can be blissfully clueless and irresponsible about pregnancy in terms of the behavior that leads up to a pregnancy.

 

Like I already said, since Lorelai was a 15-year-old pregnant girl I don''t believe she could ignore the girl's viewpoint and just see her son as being popular and socially well-adjusted.  She had a front row seat to the behavior that led up to her pregnancy, both hers and Christopher's.  Do you think Lorelai is so dim-witted that she wouldn't be able to make the connection between her own experiences and the potentially dangerous behavior of her son or daughter?  I would have to disagree.

[txhorns79]

Do you think Lorelai is so dim-witted that she wouldn't be able to make the connection between her own experiences and the potentially dangerous behavior of her son or daughter?  I would have to disagree.

 

I may have had said something similar before, but I'm also in the camp that Lorelai would do everything in her power, regardless of whether Rory was a boy or girl, to keep the kid from parenting a child. 

[Melancholy]

Like I already said, since Lorelai was a 15-year-old pregnant girl I don''t believe she could ignore the girl's viewpoint and just see her son as being popular and socially well-adjusted.  She had a front row seat to the behavior that led up to her pregnancy, both hers and Christopher's.  Do you think Lorelai is so dim-witted that she wouldn't be able to make the connection between her own experiences and the potentially dangerous behavior of her son or daughter?  I would have to disagree.

 

I don't think it's a matter of "dim-witted". The legions of parents who police girls' sexualities more than boys' know perfectly well that it takes a boy and a girl to make a baby. They probably intellectually believe that it's both children's responsibility to abstain or practice safe sex. It's a reptilian brain stem emotional reaction hammered in by centuries of history and current social mores that teen pregnancy just feels like more of an immediate concern for a daughter than a son. It's an instinct hammered in from culture than girls abstaining from sex as a teen, regardless of whether they used protection which can nearly eliminate the chance of a teen pregnancy, means that they're virtuous. 

 

So, yes, while Lorelai knows intellectually that it takes two to have a baby, I think there'd be an emotional instinct where if Lorelei's son stayed out all night with a girl, Emily probably wouldn't give Lorelai the same shit and Lorelai would have balanced the competing interests of being flexible when a child sincerely explains that it was an accident and disciplining the child when they've done something wrong more in the favor of the former because she's not guarding against the same immediate problem. When Lorelai wanted to know when Rory was getting sexual, Lorelai was trying to balance the need to not be seen as over-prying and making her child embarrassed with her need to be kept informed as the parent and the hope that if Rory had to explain when sex would happen to her mom, it would encourage Rory to think more carefully before taking that step. IMO, there's a HUGE issue between mothers and sons that mothers really feel pressure to not be seen as prying or embarrassing because that's like the kiss of death to a mother/teen son dynamic. It's like how I bet Lorelai intellectually knows that having sex as a senior doesn't make you a BAAAAD kid and abstaining isn't the answer so much as safe sex (which Paris said she had)- but emotionally, Lorelai takes the historical/conservative society position that abstention = good kid. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Melancholy

[shron17]

It's a reptilian brain stem emotional reaction hammered in by centuries of history and current social mores that teen pregnancy just feels like more of an immediate concern for a daughter than a son. It's an instinct hammered in from culture than girls abstaining from sex as a teen, regardless of whether they used protection which can nearly eliminate the chance of a teen pregnancy, means that they're virtuous.

 

 

I have no doubt that there may be "legions" of parents who let this instinct guide their parenting.  I just think personal experience trumps any such instinct.  Every single time.  Even though it's been many decades since I've been 16, I still remember how it felt to be me then.  And despite the passage of time that person I was is a big part of who I am today as an adult and as a parent.  You can't conveniently overlook something that was and still is such a big influence on your identity even at the risk of being a nosy, embarrassing mom to your teen-aged son.  If Lorelai had a son instead of a daughter I have no doubt her parenting and communication style would be much different.  But, it seems likely the push to keep her daughter from making her mistakes would translate into making sure her son didn't turn out exactly like his dad.  Because she would want her son to grow into a strong, responsible, respectful person--not a weak-willed charmer who drifts through life with good intentions that he never manages to carry out.  Thus my guess is with a son Lorelai would have made the type of parenting choices over the years so that by the time he was a teen acting like Christopher would be out of character.

 

It's like how I bet Lorelai intellectually knows that having sex as a senior doesn't make you a BAAAAD kid and abstaining isn't the answer so much as safe sex (which Paris said she had)- but emotionally, Lorelai takes the historical/conservative society position that abstention = good kid.

 

To me, the I've got the good kid moment was just a very private momentary celebration on Lorelai's part of having raised a daughter who clearly made better choices than she did.  Not any kind of historical/conservative society position on abstention.  And even if it were more than just that, I don't think that one little moment necessarily predicts that she would be more relaxed about a son's sexuality.

 

Lorelai would have balanced the competing interests of being flexible when a child sincerely explains that it was an accident and disciplining the child when they've done something wrong more in the favor of the former because she's not guarding against the same immediate problem.

 

Whether she had a son or a daughter, I don't believe Lorelai could ever not be aware that she is guarding against the same immediate problem.  Other parents might not think of that first, but I just don't see how anyone who got pregnant at 15 would ever overlook that possibility.

[ghoulina]

Maybe as a general rule, but with a family like Lorelai's where her getting pregnant as a teen was a hugely traumatizing event for everyone, I don't believe for a moment that Lorelai wouldn't be on constant guard for that, regardless of the sex of her child

 

I agree. I don't Lorelai would give her child a pass if he were a boy, or be less vigilant about it. She was abandoned by the boy who got her pregnant; I don't see her even entertaining the idea that her son wouldn't be just as rsepsonsible as the girl he hypothetically knocked up. 

 

And yes, when there was a conflict between allowing Luke to be concerned about his nephew's safety and Lorelai making it SUPER CLEAR that Rory was the biggest most angelic victim here and Jess should be punished because the crash had to be all of his fault, Lorelai did not pick the former.

 

I may be in the minority here, but I don't think Lorelai thought Rory was such an angel. I think deep down she knew Rory wasn't perfect, that she was flawed, and had a lot of the same issues/desires other teenagers did. And I think that scared the crap out of her. Lorelai basically threw her life away over a boy, and her biggest fear is Rory losing all the chances that she, herself, lost. She freaked out a bit with Dean, but overall he was good and safe and didn't tempt Rory too badly. But Jess. Jess was another matter. Her brought out another side of Rory, one Lorelai didn't really like. I think deep down she knew that the trouble Rory got into with Jess was just as much her fault, but she wasn't ready to admit that, so she took it all out on Jess. I saw a lot of her behavior as reacting out of fear, fear that Rory was just like her and was going to throw her life away too. 

[shron17]

I think deep down she knew Rory wasn't perfect, that she was flawed, and had a lot of the same issues/desires other teenagers did. And I think that scared the crap out of her. Lorelai basically threw her life away over a boy, and her biggest fear is Rory losing all the chances that she, herself, lost.

 

Good insight, and very plain in the pilot when Lorelai thought she had Rory in Chilton, made a deal with the devil to pay for it, and then panicked when it looked like she wanted to throw it all away for a boy.  "Does he have a motorcycle?  Cause if you're going to throw your life away, he better have a motorcycle!"

[txhorns79]

Good insight, and very plain in the pilot when Lorelai thought she had Rory in Chilton, made a deal with the devil to pay for it, and then panicked when it looked like she wanted to throw it all away for a boy.  "Does he have a motorcycle?  Cause if you're going to throw your life away, he better have a motorcycle!"

 

I don't know if I would call that panic, so much as Lorelai chose that moment to switch from "friend" to "mom" with Rory. 

[shron17]

I don't know if I would call that panic, so much as Lorelai chose that moment to switch from "friend" to "mom" with Rory.

 

I'd say she immediately panicked when she found out a boy was involved, and didn't play the mom card until it was clear being a friend wouldn't get the job done.  The dialogue makes that very clear.

LORELAI: Listen, can we just start all over, okay? You tell me all about the guy and I promise not to let my head explode, huh? Rory, please talk to me.

 

Thinking back, Lorelai's fear was probably the main reason she overreacted when Rory decided to drop out Yale.  We know it wasn't Logan's idea to steal the yacht yet I can't blame Lorelai for thinking Rory would have made better decisions if she wasn't dating him.

[clack]

Season 1 Luke sometimes gave the impression of a man with a large inner life and large inner resources choosing to live a small-scale, small town life for ideological reasons. Kinda a back-to- nature, off-the-grid guy.

But all too often in later seasons he came across as small-minded, with limited horizons, a small man living a small life because that was all he was capable of. This diminishment of his character made his romance with Lorelai less satisfying than it at first promised to be. I missed this early Luke, secretly well-read and culturally astute behind his gruff, laconic exterior.

[Smad]

Season 1 Luke sometimes gave the impression of a man with a large inner life and large inner resources choosing to live a small-scale, small town life for ideological reasons. Kinda a back-to- nature, off-the-grid guy.

But all too often in later seasons he came across as small-minded, with limited horizons, a small man living a small life because that was all he was capable of. This diminishment of his character made his romance with Lorelai less satisfying than it at first promised to be. I missed this early Luke, secretly well-read and culturally astute behind his gruff, laconic exterior.

Sadly that was the way ASP chose to portray the differences between classes. This class difference wasn't an issue before she put the two together. And in order to get that point across one of them had to be character assasinated and regressed. And there was no way ASP was going to do that to Lorelai so Luke's character had to to get the axe. ASP's lack of abiity when it comes to storytelling somestimes makes me wonder why I actually liked the show. Characters flip-flopped so much depending on what she wanted to do either with them or storywise.

[Gooey]

They also did the same to Dean.

 

To be honest, despite it being the first Season, I think Season 1 was where the majority of the characters were at their most complex. As the years went by they became more one dimensional (and in turn increasingly shrill/dense/twee/obtuse/grouchy) - see Luke, Dean, Sookie, Emily, Lorelai, Paris, Christopher, Kirk etc etc.

[txhorns79]

To be honest, despite it being the first Season, I think Season 1 was where the majority of the characters were at their most complex. As the years went by they became more one dimensional (and in turn increasingly shrill/dense/twee/obtuse/grouchy) - see Luke, Dean, Sookie, Emily, Lorelai, Paris, Christopher, Kirk etc etc.

 

Yeah, sometimes it did feel like someone in the writers' room must have repeatedly stated "You know what this episode is missing?  More townies!  The quirkier the better!"

[clack]

Dean as first presented seemed to be, if not quite future Ivy League, perhaps future UConn. Which would have presented sufficient dramatic contrast with Rory -- there was no need to dumb him down into a Monster Truck aficionado.

'Northern Exposure' did quirky small town folk more sucessfully than did GG. In NE, the quirks were but one element in a character's personality, in GG, the quirks defined the characters. Kirk was all quirk, all the time.

[Eeksquire]

 

To be honest, despite it being the first Season, I think Season 1 was where the majority of the characters were at their most complex. As the years went by they became more one dimensional (and in turn increasingly shrill/dense/twee/obtuse/grouchy) - see Luke, Dean, Sookie, Emily, Lorelai, Paris, Christopher, Kirk etc etc.

I think this happens to a lot of shows over time - seems like when the writers run out of story, they fall back on stereotypes or the broadest possible characteristics of their own characters.  That said, I'm still going to watch the hell out of the revival, just to see what happens.

[alexa]

I finally finished my most recent run through of the full 7 season of Gilmore Girls, and now am curious to see where the revival takes it.  I will have to hear it from all of you as I don't use Netflix, but I am sure over time it will come available at some point.  

 

Season 7 brings me mixed feelings.... there are some great episodes in there that really bring the characters together in a nice way-- Lane's baby shower, the party for Rory at the end, etc.  But as I always say here, Christopher is a negative for me, so him taking up half of the season was annoying as usual.  Once I got past that and got to see some of the rapport between Luke and Lorelai, things are much better.  I also think that Lorelai has some good moments with Sookie and her parents in this season.  Rory had some life changing moments, and I liked the back and forth with her and Logan.

 

I love the last episode.  It was very sweet--how the town/Luke planned that party, and I loved Lorelai's parents being there and her dad insisting on complimenting her.  Very sweet.

[Persnickety1]

I don't think that is quite true. She didn't leave New York City after The Bangles concert and let Madeleine and Louise find their own way  home. She literally went door-to-door to search for them and then read them the riot act. After that, she apparently spoke to their parents about their conduct. If she was only concerned about Rory I doubt she would have bothered to do all that.

 

Correct.  I also believe Lane rather looked on her as a second mother and even asked Rory to be her twins' Lorelai Gilmore.  Loralei took the time and effort (and dealt with the often formidable Mrs. Kim) to broker the peace treaty between Lane and Mrs. Kim for the baby shower, Loralei allowing coitus interruptus to talk to Lane after the incident of touching that band dude's hair, and other assorted instances of a motherly instinct in the character.  

 

Plus she made more than one reference to Rory about not breaking Mom Code.

 

Yes, I agree with you.  She was concerned with all kids.  Except maybe Jess, but then Jess wasn't receptive to her attempts to "bond."  I'll admit, she tried more often than I would have with Jess.  

Edited January 7, 2016 by Persnickety1

[takalotti]

it wouldn't include Lorelai who pointedly does not really care about another child's problems if it diverts adoring attention for her kid for a millisecond (Jess post-accident, Lindsay). 

I'm not trying to speak for Melancholy at all, but I think the counter argument examples of the Bangles concert or being there for Lane (for the hair touching or anything Mama Kim related) don't apply. They didn't detract from Rory or put her in a bad situation/light the way the accident or the confrontation about the affair did. Lorelai being there for Lane would apply if we were talking about a case where Lane wronged Rory and Lorelai talked to Lane about it sympathetically instead of "How could you do that to Rory?" or talked to Rory about it trying to get her to see Lane's side of things.

And while of course I believe Lorelai cared about M/L's wellbeing when she was searching for them after the concert, I think that was only a fraction of the reason she stormed through the building all mama-bear style. Some other factors...

They left on her watch so she was responsible for them. Would she have done the same if M/L's parents were also at the concert but just shrugged when they heard the girls bailed? Dunno.

They took advantage of her cool-mom attitude and Lorelai wasn't going to have any of that. This is apparent to me when she finds them, they say "Lorelai" and she corrects them with "Ms. Gilmore."

They ALMOST put Rory at risk by trying to talk Rory into going with them. And would Lorelai pass up a chance to track them down and lecture "If you ever do this again it will not be around my kid!" even if the other points were not factors?

[Guest]

I think she also was just pissed at them that she had given up her great seats for a chance for Rory to make friends and it wasn't appreciated by them and they just left without using the seats.

[takalotti]

That too :)

[Fishy]

Recently seeing reruns of all the Gilmore Girls seasons and I remember once again why I hate every episode with Christopher in it.  Can't stand him as a wimp-ass character and the two of them together.  Barf.

[timimouse]

Ok I just found this thread, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously. But I keep trying to put a timeline on Lorelai and Christopher's relationship and I'm struggling. Every time I watch those episodes I keep wondering "Who's marriage lasted longer? Christopher and Lorelai or Kim Kardashian and Kris Humpheries?" Because it just feels like they rushed through that dating-marriage-divorce all in less than 72 days... Could you guys help me out here? For approximately how long did that marriage last? I often think I would've believed it more if they didn't rush through it so quickly. But Christopher knew he was the rebound guy and said he was ok with that and then woke up a week later and decided he wasn't? Um.... no.

[lulu1960]

I believe the marriage last about 4 months November to February

[lulu1960]

French Twist aired Nov. 16th
Farewell My Pet aired Feb. 13th.
 

Edited January 19, 2016 by lulu1960

[dustylil]

Boy, I wish we had been given a chance to see that French marriage certificate. It was probably an application for a parking permit or a dog license.