Lorelai Gilmore: The 10(+) Things I Hate About You

[Kohola3]

2 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

Which is why I believe Richard & Emily deserve some major props, which they never really get on this show (or from the majority of the fans). 

I admit I always placed blame their way because of what we saw. I never, ever remembered the whole "sex at 14/15' part of the equation.  Maybe I didn't listen closely enough but I swear reading about that whole timeline was entirely new to me.  And it sheds an entirely new light on the elder Gilmores!

Edited March 14, 2018 by Kohola3
Their is correct, there is not.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, slf said:

Always made me wonder what Lane thought of Lorelai's "I barely survived" melodrama regarding her childhood consider what poor Lane had to deal with. I can't imagine Lorelai being raised by Mrs. Kim. She'd have been shipped off to South Korea for sure.

Forget imagining Lorelai.  Poor Mrs. Kim.  She'd have had a stroke or heart attack or something.

[Frelling Tralk]

Totally agree, I always thought it spoke volumes that Lorelai never had many specific examples to bring up on how her parents were the worst, even at the funeral her example of Richard being a bad parent involved him getting angry at his underage daughter having sex in his house, which really would be true of any parent. It seemed like if anything her frustration was more about feeling stifled by upper society in general and not fitting in with that world, and somehow her parents got all the blame for that life making her miserable

Edited March 14, 2018 by Frelling Tralk

[Guest]

I think a lot of this was inconsistent writing and they didn’t really think through what the different stories of Lorelai’s teen years did to the timeline- or they thought and didn’t care!

[stan4]

On 3/13/2018 at 6:19 PM, Taryn74 said:

Agreed.  Which is why I believe Richard & Emily deserve some major props, which they never really get on this show (or from the majority of the fans).  Not only did they NOT send their wild, rebellious teenager away to "protect the family name" when she got pregnant, pressure her to have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption, it doesn't sound like they even were all that harsh with her even when she was at her wildest! 

Now, hold up, fans of Richard and Emily.

They were never going to ask her to have an abortion or give it away.  They were insanely conservative and they would have been way too protective of the Gilmore blood to give a baby away.

Not harsh when she was wild...no, I think the point is they weren't around.  She was wild because they were missing.  We know Richard was always flying off here and there.  We know he didn't take her anywhere or play with her.   We get pretty good detail even from Lorelai herself about how he was focused on providing and wasn't a hands on kind of guy, but that was how he thought he was doing good for his family.  When you can remember the one time (or few times) your dad supported you and comforted you because it stands out so much, that's a bad freakin' dad.  

 

Did you notice at their vow renewal (a garish testament to how much they don't care about anyone else but themselves) the story Richard told?  Maybe I'm sensitive to this story because I have little kids, but it hit me right off the bat.  He said that Lorelai was having ear infections with pain and crying all night.  And it was so horrible that they couldn't keep a nanny, so eventually "it fell to Emily" to sit up with her and comfort her.

HER MOTHER was the last resort for them when their kid was sick and in pain?

I think that right there speaks VOLUMES about the kind of mother Emily was.  Proper frocks and cotillions (and maybe other material things), but no actual mothering: guidance, confidences shared, comforting, etc.  Lorelai likely felt like an accessory and that's probably all she really was.

 

I am fortunate enough to provide my kids with every material possession they could ever want.  They even go to the best schools for $$$$.  But every single time, what they really want is my attention.  My involvement.  Cuddles.  Stories.  They want me to listen to them share their ideas.  Lorelai probably had none of that.  

 

Not to mention that if Richard and Emily treated their kid they way they treat everyone else, it had to be crap in that house.

[slf]

On 3/15/2018 at 4:28 PM, stan4 said:

Now, hold up, fans of Richard and Emily.

I'm not claiming that Richard and Emily were great parents without any flaws. I was remarking on Lorelai's behavior as a teenager w/r/t to her relationship with her parents and to her often immature and self-centered behavior as an adult. 

On 3/15/2018 at 4:28 PM, stan4 said:

Not harsh when she was wild...no, I think the point is they weren't around.  She was wild because they were missing.  We know Richard was always flying off here and there.  We know he didn't take her anywhere or play with her.   We get pretty good detail even from Lorelai herself about how he was focused on providing and wasn't a hands on kind of guy, but that was how he thought he was doing good for his family.  When you can remember the one time (or few times) your dad supported you and comforted you because it stands out so much, that's a bad freakin' dad.  

Plenty of people have to travel for their jobs and that doesn't make them bad parents. It's true he wasn't very hands-on, which is a lovely bit of misogyny from that generation.

On 3/15/2018 at 4:28 PM, stan4 said:

Did you notice at their vow renewal (a garish testament to how much they don't care about anyone else but themselves) the story Richard told?  Maybe I'm sensitive to this story because I have little kids, but it hit me right off the bat.  He said that Lorelai was having ear infections with pain and crying all night.  And it was so horrible that they couldn't keep a nanny, so eventually "it fell to Emily" to sit up with her and comfort her.

HER MOTHER was the last resort for them when their kid was sick and in pain?

I think that right there speaks VOLUMES about the kind of mother Emily was.  Proper frocks and cotillions (and maybe other material things), but no actual mothering: guidance, confidences shared, comforting, etc.  Lorelai likely felt like an accessory and that's probably all she really was.

I had to go back and read a transcript because this is from one of the later season episodes and I just hate those. So according to Richard, Lorelai went through a "period" where she suffered from "chronic" ear infections when she was three. Even a SAHM can't, and shouldn't, sit with a child 24/7 when going through something like that. I don't doubt that sending in a professional childcare provider would've been their preferred choice- hell, it would probably be the preferred choice for a lot of people. While I don't think Emily was an especially great mother (sounds like she was the New England equivalent of Blanche Devereaux) I would point out that she did take care of Lorelai when she was ill (the whole mashed banana on toast thing from season one when Rory went to the dance) on other occasions so it's not like if Lorelai got sick Emily would just ignore her. Richard said it "fell to Emily to sit with [Lorelai] all night" one night when the most recent nanny had quit, not that Emily hadn't taken care of Lorelai at all.

But yes, the elder Gilmores were reserved parents who, like many of their class, believed that nannies were necessary for raising a child. 

[stan4]

3 hours ago, slf said:

I'm not claiming that Richard and Emily were great parents without any flaws. I was remarking on Lorelai's behavior as a teenager w/r/t to her relationship with her parents and to her often immature and self-centered behavior as an adult. 

Plenty of people have to travel for their jobs and that doesn't make them bad parents. It's true he wasn't very hands-on, which is a lovely bit of misogyny from that generation.

I had to go back and read a transcript because this is from one of the later season episodes and I just hate those. So according to Richard, Lorelai went through a "period" where she suffered from "chronic" ear infections when she was three. Even a SAHM can't, and shouldn't, sit with a child 24/7 when going through something like that. I don't doubt that sending in a professional childcare provider would've been their preferred choice- hell, it would probably be the preferred choice for a lot of people. While I don't think Emily was an especially great mother (sounds like she was the New England equivalent of Blanche Devereaux) I would point out that she did take care of Lorelai when she was ill (the whole mashed banana on toast thing from season one when Rory went to the dance) on other occasions so it's not like if Lorelai got sick Emily would just ignore her. Richard said it "fell to Emily to sit with [Lorelai] all night" one night when the most recent nanny had quit, not that Emily hadn't taken care of Lorelai at all.

But yes, the elder Gilmores were reserved parents who, like many of their class, believed that nannies were necessary for raising a child. 

Oh, yeah.  I agree.  This is the active (and boy, am I active on it) Lorelai's flaws thread.

 

Traveling didn't make him a bad parent.  Never talking to his kid made him a bad parent.  However, there are actually many who would argue that purposely not being physically present (when it is a choice) does make you a bad parent.  

 

I went back and watched the WBB speech again.  Yeah...it's pretty clear that after they had exhausted their nannies AND the housekeeper, it fell to Emily.  I don't know why you think it's not the parent's job to sit with their kid when they have a bout of sickness.  I mean, it's pretty much what most of us do (and we wouldn't want anyone else there (except the other parent)) to do it.  Not that Richard was going to soil his hands on that one.

I don't think you have to be an ogre parent who beats their kid and leaves them chained to a bed to affect their adulthood negatively.  You can be not present, you can be overly-critical, and you can be overall neglectful (even with benign intent) and do plenty of damage.  

 

I don't care for Lorelai,  There are a bazillion reasons I think she is not a good person.  And I think she milks this whole "love/hate" parent thing way too much.  Not only that, she acts like she's so independent, but the truth is that she, too, has the weight of her parents $$$ to fall back on.  

 

My post was about not giving too much credit to R&E for "putting up" with her behavior.  They created it.

Edited March 17, 2018 by stan4

[slf]

26 minutes ago, stan4 said:

Never talking to his kid made him a bad parent.  However, there are actually many who would argue that purposely not being physically present (when it is a choice) does make you a bad parent.  

I don't recall Lorelai saying that Richard never talked to her.

Almost everyone has the choice to be physically present in their child's life, technically. Don't become a truck driver who goes on long hauls, become a garbage man instead. Don't become a pilot, become a dentist. I don't agree that choosing a profession that involves traveling makes you a bad parent.

28 minutes ago, stan4 said:

I went back and watched the WBB speech again.  Yeah...it's pretty clear that after they had exhausted their nannies AND the housekeeper, it fell to Emily. 

Agree to disagree.

31 minutes ago, stan4 said:

I don't know why you think it's not the parent's job to sit with their kid when they have a bout of sickness.  I mean, it's pretty much what most of us do (and we wouldn't want anyone else there (except the other parent)) to do it.

It is the parent's job to provide care for their child. It isn't not an obligation to sit with a child all day and all night while they're going through a period of multiple ear infections. No doctor would recommend that and society putting that pressure on women has had terrible consequences. I've seen mothers of infants who cried and cried just completely break down because they couldn't take it. It's perfectly acceptable to get help. Most healthcare professionals encourage it, whether it means friends or family helping out or bringing in a babysitter or nanny. A prolonged period of ear infections that result in a toddler crying almost non-stop is the exact right time to bring in help if you want and can arrange it.

33 minutes ago, stan4 said:

I don't think you have to be an ogre parent who beats their kid and leaves them chained to a bed to affect their adulthood negatively.  You can be not present, you can be overly-critical, and you can be overall neglectful (even with benign intent) and do plenty of damage.  

I agree to an extent. But when your parents weren't actually abusive, when they were just critical and not expressive in the exact way you wanted how much can you lay at their feet? I was raised in a physically abusive household so it's possible that I'm just not being sensitive enough to Lorelai's upbringing. But it seems like Lorelai chooses to see her parents not doing what she felt they should do, or them wanting her to do things she didn't want to do, as proof they were bad parents or uncaring parents. Emily was often very critical* and Richard was the classic "excellent provider who cares but isn't especially expressive" mold of fathers from before the '90s and because of that I can understand Lorelai being neurotic. But still disliking her parents and their way of life so much that she erupted during dinner because her child had the temerity to apply to Richard's alma mater? The way she let it affect her relationship with Luke when she was well into her forties? At a certain point it just feels to me like so much of how Lorelai sees herself hinges on the "oppressed child escapes uncaring parents and forges new life for herself" narrative that isn't without some truth but seems to lack perspective. In Lorelai's world, Emily was controlling and critical therefor an uncaring mother but Mrs. Kim is a fantastic if frighteningly formidable woman. Yet...Mrs. Kim is five times more controlling than Emily ever was, as far as we've seen (imo). 

Like I said, I just feel like Lorelai has always lacked perspective but there are many instances in which Lorelai's grievances are valid and I totally agree with her.

*I'd say this is probably where Emily did the most damage.

[stan4]

Why do you feel people give teenage Jess and Tristan a pass bc of their bad parents/childhood and not her?

 

[ I am a health care provider.  But this isn't the forum to argue the difference between times we actually tell people to get help taking care of their love ones and "chronic ear infections."]

 

There are many times Lorelai expresses incredulity at speaking to/with her parents about personal matters.  The trust required to demonstrate vulnerability  is not there...and there's a reason for it.  Not to mention Emily still routinely pulls sh*tty stunts/digs/insults.

[junienmomo]

Emily had shown herself willing to freely spend money on nursing and care staff, but she didn’t do it in this particular case. While the details aren’t clear, I believe it’s reasonable to presume that Emily was an important part of the cause for the staff to leave, and that this incident was only one night because another person could be called in on an emergency basis, or they could have gone to the hospital. It’s horrible for any parent to experience it, but it was eminently manageable for the Gilmores. 

Where I hate both sides of the Lorelai and her parents relationship is in the adult phase. Lorelai remained immature, and her parents treated her like an angry teenager. Either side could have stopped it simply by choosing to not “go there” when the other party was promulgating the bad teenager situation, but they didn’t. 

Emily’s ridiculous demand for Lorelai’s manners, often drawn from decades earlier, and hypocritically executed, should have been given up twenty years earlier. Lorelai should have insisted on being treated as an adult. Instead, every time, both parties always gave into immature parent/child behaviors. That’s one of the reasons I grew to hate Lorelai over the seasons. 

Rory got so many passes from Emily on manners. Not always, but pretty often. 

[slf]

9 hours ago, stan4 said:

Why do you feel people give teenage Jess and Tristan a pass bc of their bad parents/childhood and not her?

Huh?

[stan4]

1 hour ago, slf said:

Huh?

I'm sorry.  That must have seemed like a non sequitor.  Apologies.

 

Everyone who loves Jess defends his acting like a grade A turd on his upbringing.  Same with Tristan.  We rarely see the same for Lorelai.  Just vitriol.

[slf]

2 hours ago, stan4 said:

I'm sorry.  That must have seemed like a non sequitor.  Apologies.

Everyone who loves Jess defends his acting like a grade A turd on his upbringing.  Same with Tristan.  We rarely see the same for Lorelai.  Just vitriol.

I don't think vitriol is what's most consistently directed at Lorelai. She's one of, if not the, most popular character from the show and one half of them most popular ship. She's still one of my two most favorite characters (along with Rory; ultimately they're both hilarious and even some of their less charming personality traits are ones I relate to (like mocking ugly babies)). But when we're focusing on a time when she was making a lot of bad choices and we're connecting that to her bad choices as an adult, then yeah, the conversation is going to be negatively critical. 

Tristan and Jess we mostly knew as teenage boys and our exposure to them was much more limited so there's less to analyze. And it looks like Jess has completely turned his life around, shedding the worst impulses he had as a teen. It's also different for some because Jess grew up in a crazy unstable home. His mother drank during his pregnancy, was inconsistently employed so they struggled financially, his father walked out on them, his mother was high a lot, he had a revolving door of men in his life because of his mom. Jess truly had an absent father. I could swear that during the season four ep when Luke met TJ he said something to Liz like every time she meets a guy she swears he's "the one" but all that happens is he walks out and takes her money and just as often her stuff. That's...a lot more than a critical mom and a dad who didn't take you to the mall when you were a kid.

Edited March 18, 2018 by slf

[stan4]

On 3/17/2018 at 8:36 PM, slf said:

 

Tristan and Jess we mostly knew as teenage boys and our exposure to them was much more limited so there's less to analyze. And it looks like Jess has completely turned his life around, shedding the worst impulses he had as a teen. It's also different for some because Jess grew up in a crazy unstable home. His mother drank during his pregnancy, was inconsistently employed so they struggled financially, his father walked out on them, his mother was high a lot, he had a revolving door of men in his life because of his mom. Jess truly had an absent father. I could swear that during the season four ep when Luke met TJ he said something to Liz like every time she meets a guy she swears he's "the one" but all that happens is he walks out and takes her money and just as often her stuff. That's...a lot more than a critical mom and a dad who didn't take you to the mall when you were a kid.

Yeah, I don't think it's a contest where "my parents were worser than yours, so I have more claim to be a jerk."

And I think you're understating how bad R&E are as parents and people by saying it's just being critical and not going to the mall.  They are truly horrible people, made worse by the fact that they parade around acting like they are paragons of society.

[readster]

1 hour ago, stan4 said:

Yeah, I don't think it's a contest where "my parents were worser than yours, so I have more claim to be a jerk."

And I think you're understating how bad R&E are as parents and people by saying it's just being critical and not going to the mall.  They are truly horrible people, made worse by the fact that they parade around acting like they are paragons of society.

Completely agree, same goes with Logan and how his parents were, which was a freaking mess too. Don't get me started on Chris's family. However, when it comes down to it, Jess had quite the claim, but also feeling that you are an embarrassment to your family (or society). Can do some huge damage, but there also comes a point and I have said this for many years that the entire Gilmore Clan needed to get over themselves and move on. 

[stan4]

1 hour ago, readster said:

Completely agree, same goes with Logan and how his parents were, which was a freaking mess too. Don't get me started on Chris's family. However, when it comes down to it, Jess had quite the claim, but also feeling that you are an embarrassment to your family (or society). Can do some huge damage, but there also comes a point and I have said this for many years that the entire Gilmore Clan needed to get over themselves and move on. 

Ugh.  In that  Kropog episode, it's a perfect distillation of how Emily treats Lorelai all the time in more subtle ways.  It was awful.  Can you imagine someone talking to a kid that way?  Mind boggling.

[elang4]

2 hours ago, stan4 said:

Ugh.  In that  Kropog episode, it's a perfect distillation of how Emily treats Lorelai all the time in more subtle ways.  It was awful.  Can you imagine someone talking to a kid that way?  Mind boggling.

And Rory just sat there and let her Grandma talk to her mom like that! That really annoyed me!

[stan4]

1 minute ago, elang4 said:

And Rory just sat there and let her Grandma talk to her mom like that! That really annoyed me!

Worse is how Richard lets Trix treat Emily.  It's insane.

[elang4]

10 minutes ago, stan4 said:

Worse is how Richard lets Trix treat Emily.  It's insane.

Yeah I agree. That was awful.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, elang4 said:

And Rory just sat there and let her Grandma talk to her mom like that! That really annoyed me!

Since when are grandchildren in control of their grandparents?  I didn't like the way my paternal grandmother talked to my mom, but it wasn't on me to stop it.  It was on my dad or maybe my mom.  I was raised to respect my elders, not talk back to them.  Not that I respected my grandmother at all.  She was mean.  But, I still wasn't going to tell her how to behave.  She was 60 years older than me.  If she hadn't figured out how to treat people nicely in that time, then she wasn't going to learn when I was old enough to say anything about it.  Now, if I had been alone with her and a boyfriend of mine, and she was being mean to him, it would have been up to me to excuse us and we would leave her to her own nastiness.

[slf]

7 hours ago, stan4 said:

Yeah, I don't think it's a contest where "my parents were worser than yours, so I have more claim to be a jerk."

And I think you're understating how bad R&E are as parents and people by saying it's just being critical and not going to the mall.  They are truly horrible people, made worse by the fact that they parade around acting like they are paragons of society.

It's not a contest, no, but the reality is if someone was, for instance, physically abused as a child I'm going to understand them having issues well into adulthood a lot better than someone who felt misunderstood or whatnot as a child. So while it's not a contest some things are objectively worse than others. Objectively, Jess had a worse childhood than Lorelai did.

I do believe Emily and Richard are rude people with a lot of flaws and had failings as parents. I don't think Lorelai suffered through anything as a child so awful that it makes sense she'd still be the way she is at almost 50. Lorelai is, ultimately, a pretty selfish person. And I know some might lay that at her parents feet, and I think you can in the sense that she was pretty spoiled as a child in most respects, but not entirely. You can't control what someone did to you as a child but you can control how you respond as an adult and I saw very little over the series that indicated Lorelai understood and was willing to work on her issues, make better choices.

Lorelai was in some respects a better mother than Emily. But also was, as this thread and others have pointed out, very controlling of Rory to the point that she had a not dissimilar relationship to the one she shared with Emily. Expecting her to go to this specific college and have a certain life - including liking certain foods and art - from a very young age, freezing her out when they had disagreements, blowing up on her about boys and sex (thinking of Rory as "good" because she was still a virgin), etc. The only reason Lorelai and Rory's relationship wasn't as disastrous as Lorelai and Emily's is because Rory was born such a people pleaser, as others have noted. In the end the apple didn't fall so far from the tree.

[stan4]

We have zero real detail about Jess's childhood, so I think a lot of assumptions are being made.

By the time we meet Liz, she's ditsy but well-meaning.  The Gilmores continue on with their malicious nutbaggery.  More can be extrapolated from their behavior.

 

 Again, maybe it's because you have no personal experience with this, but I really feel you are understating what an emotionally abusive or neglectful childhood can be like.   I was there to see what happened to my friends who were accessories in the lives of their parents and who were told to be appreciative for everything they had when all they got was criticized and put down and never good enough.

 

 I do agree that you can only go so far in life blaming your childhood for the way you act. We all have choices about how we behave.

 That is why don't accept the excuse that someone is "having a bad day" for their rude behavior.

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

Since when are grandchildren in control of their grandparents?  I didn't like the way my paternal grandmother talked to my mom, but it wasn't on me to stop it.  It was on my dad or maybe my mom.  I was raised to respect my elders, not talk back to them.  Not that I respected my grandmother at all.  She was mean.  But, I still wasn't going to tell her how to behave.  

They are not.   But did you willingly hang out with your grandmother and pal around?

 

  I don't trust anybody who continues to associate with people who are mean to someone else just because they are not mean to them.

 As Rory did eventually learn, that behavior did turn on her.

[slf]

53 minutes ago, stan4 said:

We have zero real detail about Jess's childhood, so I think a lot of assumptions are being made.

Inaccurate. Jess, Liz, and Luke have given us many details about his childhood. Mostly Luke but, for example, it was Liz who volunteered that she drank throughout her pregnancy with him.

54 minutes ago, stan4 said:

Again, maybe it's because you have no personal experience with this, but I really feel you are understating what an emotionally abusive or neglectful childhood can be like.   I was there to see what happened to my friends who were accessories in the lives of their parents and who were told to be appreciative for everything they had when all they got was criticized and put down and never good enough.

As I have previously stated a few posts above I was raised in a physically violent household so my experience with being abused is first-hand. I know, intimately, exactly what it's like to be neglected. I've grown up in a home where the electricity was off more often than it was on, both during winter and summer here in Texas. Lack of food to the point of often having one meal a day; I remember eating little packets of grape jelly because it was all we had and having to go a week on nothing but "soup" made from bullion cubes. We were homeless for an extended period starting when I was six which involved living in shelters. I've worn clothes that were threadbare and had holes in them. One parent was fond of belting us, though the way they did it it was more like whipping and the less said about the violent tendencies of my other parent, who thankfully left us, the better. This is to say nothing of being told that me and my sisters "ruined everything", being told in detail how every relative my parents had wanted us to be aborted ("so you should be grateful" was unspoken but always implied), being constantly lied to about what was and had happened to the point where I sometimes have to call my sisters to verify if something actually happened. Personal experience isn't something I lack.

And as I said, maybe because my upbringing was so much worse than Lorelai could fathom I don't sympathize with her quite as strongly. I do feel for her, having a mother who could be so harsh and a father who was distant. But a little perspective goes a long way.

[stan4]

26 minutes ago, slf said:

Inaccurate. Jess, Liz, and Luke have given us many details about his childhood. Mostly Luke but, for example, it was Liz who volunteered that she drank throughout her pregnancy with him.

As I have previously stated a few posts above I was raised in a physically violent household so my experience with being abused is first-hand. I know, intimately, exactly what it's like to be neglected. I've grown up in a home where the electricity was off more often than it was on, both during winter and summer here in Texas. Lack of food to the point of often having one meal a day; I remember eating little packets of grape jelly because it was all we had and having to go a week on nothing but "soup" made from bullion cubes. We were homeless for an extended period starting when I was six which involved living in shelters. I've worn clothes that were threadbare and had holes in them. One parent was fond of belting us, though the way they did it it was more like whipping and the less said about the violent tendencies of my other parent, who thankfully left us, the better. This is to say nothing of being told that me and my sisters "ruined everything", being told in detail how every relative my parents had wanted us to be aborted ("so you should be grateful" was unspoken but always implied), being constantly lied to about what was and had happened to the point where I sometimes have to call my sisters to verify if something actually happened. Personal experience isn't something I lack.

And as I said, maybe because my upbringing was so much worse than Lorelai could fathom I don't sympathize with her quite as strongly. I do feel for her, having a mother who could be so harsh and a father who was distant. But a little perspective goes a long way.

Thank you for sharing something so personal.

My wife has a similar tale to yours.  And my mother could lose her sh** quick as lightening...woe was to us if she had anything in her hand at the time.  I took many poundings trying to keep her off my little brother.

Sounds like there are many ways to be cruel to kids.  I'm sorry any of us had to go through that.  But it was the stuff my mother *said* that still affects me today more than anything.  That makes me pause, doubt myself, and remain a little distrustful of everyone who shows me intetest/affection.

 

 I remember reading somewhere something about how your voice to your kids becomes their inner voice.  It's why I am so careful how I speak to my kids, the words I choose...and no yelling or hitting or personal attacks allowed in our home.

 

I remember Liz saying she drank and smoked during her pregnancy, but many women did back then and still do now (without malice then or afterwards). 

 

Other than hearing she went through men and couldn't stick to any kind of job, smoked pot, etc, I still am unaware of any specific details relating to Jess's childhood that meant he was abused.  Raised in an unstable home?  Ok.  Abused?  Never heard that.

[stan4]

Of course,  this all begs the question of why Lorelai didn't cut them off completely and had this weird intermittent holiday contact with them. Was it so that she could stay close to their money?

[Eeksquire]

Quote

Of course,  this all begs the question of why Lorelai didn't cut them off completely and had this weird intermittent holiday contact with them.

I think it's harder than a lot of people imagine to totally cut off your family. Unless you can point to violent physical abuse (and even probably then), people tend to doubt that your experience was "really that bad" and chastise you, for example, for cutting your parents off from their grandchildren.  Even your own friends will question your judgment about your decision to draw that boundary.

[readster]

11 hours ago, Eeksquire said:

I think it's harder than a lot of people imagine to totally cut off your family. Unless you can point to violent physical abuse (and even probably then), people tend to doubt that your experience was "really that bad" and chastise you, for example, for cutting your parents off from their grandchildren.  Even your own friends will question your judgment about your decision to draw that boundary.

Sad to say, I have that same problem with my own father and after so many years of little communication and so forth. He has only met his only grandchild in person and I left the door open to him constantly. Especially, after he had to have triple bypass and could have died. Yet, didn't really change everything and unlike me, he is very close with my 3 other siblings and my sister's wedding is next month that I will be going to, but my son and wife will not due to both financial reasons and my wife just throwing her hands up. Yet, she had dealt with her great uncle who has had constant gambling problems and money issues. That her mother and aunt bailed him out and he did have a 3 year upswing of getting into a windfall that we did borrow money from him due to both of us going through unemployment. However, all that money he had, he gambled away and we have been paying him back as promised, but we have officially said, we are done after he is fully paid back at the end of the year. He constantly did what he has always done and the only reason everyone hasn't just given up is that he lives in a very real estate profitable area in Chicago and when he dies that money goes to all the grand children since that was in their will. However, everyone bails him out because they don't want to lose out on the property, but sadly, about 7 years ago my mother-in-law and her sister should have said: "We are done, mom and dad would hate to see his just be lost after promising their grandchildren it for their own well being since you can't keep it together." Yet, they can't draw the line on when to throw things up, even with him in his mid 60s. 

[slf]

22 hours ago, stan4 said:

Other than hearing she went through men and couldn't stick to any kind of job, smoked pot, etc, I still am unaware of any specific details relating to Jess's childhood that meant he was abused.  Raised in an unstable home?  Ok.  Abused?  Never heard that.

I never said Jess was abused. I said he was raised in a crazy unstable home. Which he was. Lack of consistent employment, especially in NY, would mean crappy apartments (crappy even by NY standards, and we know that at least once she had to call Luke crying for money to get a new place to live), bills not getting paid, it would affect groceries and clothing, etc. Having a mom who is at-best ditzy be high high a lot can't be a joy, especially when she's your primary caregiver. Not to mention the revolving door of loser men who we were told often wiped out her bank account and stole her furniture/tv. And of course, there's always the effect of having a dad who just walked out one day and never came back. Jess's upbringing might not have involved any malice but it's proof of how simply loving your kid isn't enough. Being a good parent involves more than fuzzy feelings.

Anyway, this isn't the Jess thread so I'll stop there.

20 hours ago, Eeksquire said:

I think it's harder than a lot of people imagine to totally cut off your family. Unless you can point to violent physical abuse (and even probably then), people tend to doubt that your experience was "really that bad" and chastise you, for example, for cutting your parents off from their grandchildren.  Even your own friends will question your judgment about your decision to draw that boundary.

Even when your family was abusive it can be difficult to cut them off. Other people think you should forgive "for yourself". Also, tbh, you don't always want to. I know that might sound crazy but one of my parents I've repeatedly tried to have a relationship because this is the only parent left to me. I have no aunts or uncles, no grandparents. It's just not always so easy as "you hurt me and I never want to see you again", even tho I've felt that way too. Sometimes you still want your parent to just...be your damn parent.

Lorelai still wants some connection to her parents, she still has hope her mother will change and they can finally have the kind of relationship she wants with her mother. That's very normal.

[Guest]

This is the Lorelai thread; please keep that in mind while posting.

[FictionLover]

I just have to say in this thread that I love Lorelai. I find her funny, corky, insecure, very flawedand and deep down a caring person (trying to get some votes for Taylor, getting the DVD player for her mom, sewing for plays and festivals). She does say some shallow things about others but only to her daughter. And if we’re honest, we’ve all done that too. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by FictionLover

[slf]

2 hours ago, FictionLover said:

I just have to say in this thread that I love Lorelai. I find her funny, corky, insecure, very flawedand and deep down a caring person (trying to get some votes for Taylor, getting the DVD player for her mom, sewing for plays and festivals). She does say some shallow things about others but only to her daughter. And if we’re honest, we’ve all done that too. 

I love her, too. She's one of my two favorite characters. I like her snarkiness because I'm very similar (also I was basically raised on snarky female characters, so...) with my friends.

I really liked her giving an encouraging talk and hug to Paris in season three. It's not the best example of Lorelai being caring, of course, but it sticks out to me 'cause that girl really needed it.

[TwirlyGirly]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 11:04 AM, stan4 said:

To be fair, her parents really are (by most standards) pretty horrible people.

But I don't think the ways they are horrible people are the same reasons she continuously rebels against them (and she freely admits she does purposely rebel:  remember how she told her mother that in That'll Do, Pig?).

I have to disagree Richard and Emily are "horrible people." They are flawed, for sure. But "horrible"? I don't think so.

Speaking specifically to their raising of Lorelai, considering the culture and society in which they were raised and in which they were living during the time period depicted in the show, (and in my endeavor to give credit where credit is due), I think they were pretty good parents.

They did try to raise Lorelai with the assumption she would, as an adult, enter their world (which obviously was contrary to Lorelai's nature and future plans). But I think many - if not most - parents do that. That assumption cuts across racial/cultural/financial lines. My ex-husband was Puerto Rican. I am not. Every time he tried to do something to better himself (enrolling in school, looking for a better job - even trying to speak more properly) - his family and friends accused him of "acting white". They were brutal.

When Lorelai became pregnant, her parents expected her and Christopher to marry. But did they force her to go through with it? (FYI - that does happen in this country). Did they try to force her into having an abortion? No. Did they send her off to a home for unwed mothers, and insist she give up her baby to adoption? No. I can attest those would have been the only choices offered to a girl who got pregnant growing up in Woodbridge, CT during that time period (that's where I was raised - upper middle class area. Populated by lots of "Gilmores"). When Lorelai refused to marry Christopher, did they throw her out of the house? Cut her off? No. She continued to live with them and be supported by them until SHE took off almost a year after Rory was born.

Even though Lorelai cut off contact with her parents for years, they were stilling willing to help her every. time. she. asked.

And what did they get in return? A daughter who was a pathological liar and who treated them like crap most of the time - and spoke badly of them to everyone who would listen. Honestly, rewatch the series from the beginning, and count all the lies, big and small, Lorelai told her parents. Then go back and count every time Lorelai said something horrible about her parents to others. Some of Lorelai's lies were downright cruel (I'm thinking right now of the time she and Christopher were sitting on the sofa, and Lorelai called Emily to tell her they wouldn't be coming to FND, and pretended she couldn't hear Emily. That was a rotten thing to do). Telling her mother she had sent her a brochure for her catering company. Lying about having to work so she wouldn't have to make an appearance at FND or a party. The scene in which Lorelai thinks her parents are looking to buy a house in Stars Hollow for themselves, so she takes them around the town and lies about it over and over.

Then, let's remember the horrible things Lorelai said about her mother at the deposition when Emily's maid sued her for wrongful termination. Or, the nasty things Lorelai said about Emily in her interview about the inn.

Lorelai publicly bashed her parents at every opportunity. Did Richard and Emily badmouth her to others? No. As a matter of fact, Richard and Emily defended Lorelai and Rory when the situation demanded it (Straub and Francine Hayden, Mitchum and Shira Huntzberger).

To her credit, Lorelai did tell Jason she couldn't be with someone who was going to sue her father. But those displays of family loyalty were few and far between.

And yet - despite all these terrible things, Richard and Emily continued to love and support both Lorelai and Rory and did everything they could do to help them.

Did Richard and Emily cross boundaries? Absolutely. I'm not giving them a pass on that. Interfering with Lorelai's and Rory's romantic relationships was wrong, wrong, wrong no matter how you look at it. But, like I said earlier - they're flawed people. They made mistakes. But - they learned from them (see Richard and Emily buying a house for Lorelai and Luke as a wedding gift). I saw growth in that. But Lorelai? To me, she was just as horrible at the end of the series as she was at the beginning.

[stan4]

5 minutes ago, TwirlyGirly said:

I have to disagree Richard and Emily are "horrible people." They are flawed, for sure. But "horrible"? I don't think so.

 

My opinion about their horribleness has less to do with their relationship with Lorelai and more about how they treat everyone else around them.  They are really rude, selfish, egotistical, vindictive, awful people.

[Kohola3]

2 minutes ago, stan4 said:

They are really rude, selfish, egotistical, vindictive, awful people.

I have to agree with that.  They bad mouth pretty much everybody including friends and acquaintances and don't even start with Emily's treatment of maids.  Richard starts a business to screw his old rival and then becomes his ally and dumps the rival's son.  They want to boot a dead relative out of the mausoleum to make room.  They openly salivate of the idea of Logan and Rory together because of his social status.  They are overjoyed when  the death of a man makes his house available for rent and think nothing of criticizing his decorating taste.  Just shallow class-obsessed people.  

And then there's the treatment of the Greasy Diner Owner.

[TwirlyGirly]

22 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

I have to agree with that.  They bad mouth pretty much everybody including friends and acquaintances and don't even start with Emily's treatment of maids.  Richard starts a business to screw his old rival and then becomes his ally and dumps the rival's son.  They want to boot a dead relative out of the mausoleum to make room.  They openly salivate of the idea of Logan and Rory together because of his social status.  They are overjoyed when  the death of a man makes his house available for rent and think nothing of criticizing his decorating taste.  Just shallow class-obsessed people.  

And then there's the treatment of the Greasy Diner Owner.

Unfortunately, in my experience growing up around a lot of "Gilmores", this is par for the course. For the record, I wasn't raised in a "Gilmore" household - it wasn't until I was in my early 20's I realized the ONLY reason my family was able to live in Woodbridge was due to my parents frugality (as a child, I thought my dad was just "cheap").

I would go to friends homes, most of whom had maids, groundskeepers, etc - people who spent their weekends at "the club" (my family didn't belong, nor did we have a maid and my dad did the upkeep on our 2.5 acre property BY HIMSELF - with a push mower, yet! - and it always looked picture-perfect).

Our next-door neighbors were quite wealthy. The dad owned a lighting design firm (he did the lighting design for the reopening of the Grand Central Station decades ago, and the Jefferson Memorial). They were Gilmores to a "T". They had three daughters (one was my age), and I remember her telling me about a dinner they had at Windows on the World in NY one evening, during which her father kept sending back his food (the lettuce on his salad wasn't cut in small enough pieces! He needed to use a knife! Unacceptable!). I guess I remember that particular story because I can't imagine sending back a dish for that reason. Plus, I'm pretty adept with a knife....

There's no doubt in my mind he would have pulled a "Richard Gilmore" in his business had the circumstances been similar (and I'm sure he probably did a number of underhanded things to get to where he did).

My point is, and not to excuse it - but their behavior (in my experience) is quite common among that socio-economic age group. Maybe is comes from the belief that wealth = entitlement. I don't know. But if that's it, Lorelai certainly wasn't wealthy in her own right, but she sure felt entitled and likewise treated a lot of people horribly, too.

Edited April 11, 2018 by TwirlyGirly

[slf]

3 hours ago, TwirlyGirly said:

But if that's it, Lorelai certainly wasn't wealthy in her own right, but she sure felt entitled and likewise treated a lot of people horribly, too.

If Lorelai inherited one thing from her parents it's a sense of entitlement and a willingness to be rude to other people.

[stan4]

7 hours ago, TwirlyGirly said:

 

My point is, and not to excuse it - but their behavior (in my experience) is quite common among that socio-economic age group. Maybe is comes from the belief that wealth = entitlement. 

I have long lived among and socialized with many wealthy people and this is NOT par for the course.  At all.

I also was in a partnership and on the board of a big company, and underhanded schemes were not par for the course, either.

 

The worst part is the Gilmores think they are good, upstanding members of society.

Even if this were "normal" for their set, that does not absolve them or not make them horrible people.

[junienmomo]

Hey, folks, there’s enough horribleness to go around! We don’t have to exclude anyone here. Just because Lorelai is horrible doesn’t mean the GIlmores aren’t. 

I like TwirlyGirly’s characterization of Lorelai’s lying being pathological, although I can’t assess it from a medical diagnosis perspective. Her lying is one of those things that make her horrible.

But the Gilmores were horrible people, from the inside out, over generations, starting with Trix’s letter to Richard.

Richard was callous with respect to people’s feelings, and as described by others, his business tactics were harsh and uncaring. His treament of Lorelai was only occasionally tolerant. Mostly she was only a pain in his butt, but he actively interfered in her love life, insisting on marriage, and deliberately humiliating Luke on a morning’s golf outing. Later he explicitly told Emily how his actions were intended to be cruel, with only a small concession to being able to put lipstick on the diner man “pig” so Lorelai would come back to the club. 

Emily is textbook horrible, with the exception of a few moments in season one. I’m a big fan of getting what I paid for, and properly sized lettuce is indeed a mistake I would not expect from a superior world-class restaurant, although I wouldn’t raise a stink about it while my friends and family were trying to have a nice dinner. Emily’s walnuts salad story is similar. Other elements of her horribleness have been described already, but I believe her insistence on calling baby Rory by a name Emily chose was the symbol of horribleness during the early years. She wanted to control every aspect of Rory’s life.

What makes Emily’s horribleness stand out above the others’ is her insistence on behavior and actions from Lorelai that she hypocritically never followed herself. This primarily revolved around telling Lorelai how to behave then exhibiting the outmoded behavior herself. To make things worse, her standard of behavior was worse than the worst of the 20th century mores. On the phone, in person, in front of strangers, Emily was consistently trying to make Lorelai behave in ways a thirty year old should not have to endure. 

The prima facie evidence of Emily’s horribleness is her treatment of Lorelai in front of Rory, and her treatment of Rory in front of Lorelai. Lorelai was not mistaken in the thought that Emily wanted a do-over with Rory, but I as a mother would rather have put Rory back into Stars Hollow High than endure more than one semester of that treatment at FND. But I differ from Lorelai in that because I am aware that a successful career does not require an Ivy League education at any cost. 

[Guest]

On 4/12/2018 at 3:46 AM, junienmomo said:

but I believe her insistence on calling baby Rory by a name Emily chose was the symbol of horribleness during the early years. She wanted to control every aspect of Rory’s life.

What was this?

[Taryn74]

I was wondering that too @deaja but I forgot to ask.

[slf]

2 hours ago, deaja said:

What was this?

Apparently this came up in the revival; Lorelai said Emily would call Rory Susan. Rory calls that comment out as being false though and Lorelai doesn't refute that?

Edited April 16, 2018 by slf

[junienmomo]

This was in my head before the revival, but I don’t have a citation for it. And Rory, being a baby at the time, wouldn’t have really known, would she?

[MatildaMoody]

There have been a few clues about the type of life Lorelai had growing up, but the thing that sticks out to me the most is that I believe Richard and Emily had a habit of trying to gaslight her. In House is not a Home, Lorelai goes to her parents and asks for their help to prevent Rory from dropping out of school. She told them how the Huntsburgers treated Rory, how Mitchum destroyed her with his criticism (something she should have been able to take if she truly wanted to be a journalist) and now Rory was drifting and they needed to triple team her to intervene. Richard and Emily agree. Rory manipulates grandpa into giving her a free place to live while she drops out of school. Richard realizes he should have backed Lorelai. Emily reminds Richard that she was perfectly willing to go along with Lorelai's plan. Cut to Friday Night's Alright for Fighting, Richard and Emily pretend they have no recollection of the conversation - to the point where Lorelai even re-enacts the entire scene. 

If Richard and Emily can knowingly lie to their daughter about something that she was there to witness, how hard must it have been to be a kid in that house? Constantly questioning whether or not you were crazy or your parents were just lying to you? And, if they are just lying, why? That would be crazy making.

[shron17]

29 minutes ago, MatildaMoody said:

If Richard and Emily can knowingly lie to their daughter about something that she was there to witness, how hard must it have been to be a kid in that house? Constantly questioning whether or not you were crazy or your parents were just lying to you? And, if they are just lying, why? That would be crazy making.

My guess is it's not so much that they're lying but really good at blocking out reality that's not to their liking.  I used to have some people in my life that were good at this--sometimes they even rewrote the past to reflect the way they "thought" it should have been.  Sure, it's lying, but some people don't even realize they are lying let alone admit to it.  And yes, definitely crazy making.

[TwirlyGirly]

2 hours ago, MatildaMoody said:

Cut to Friday Night's Alright for Fighting, Richard and Emily pretend they have no recollection of the conversation - to the point where Lorelai even re-enacts the entire scene. 

You've just referenced one of two of my most favorite episodes in the entire series - two that have taken up permanent residence on my DVR (the other is "Wedding Bells Blues" - for the dance scene between Richard and Emily at the reception for their vow renewal to the song "Bill").

What I love about the fight scene from "Friday Night's Alright for Fighting", though, is the way it was filmed (and I would have LOVED to have been present for the filming - wonder how many takes each of those segments took?)

But that part you mentioned has always confused me, and I've always wished I could ask ASP what SHE had in mind for that scene, because it confuses me. Are we supposed to believe both Richard and Emily are suffering from amnesia, perhaps? Because they could have easily addressed the situation by telling Lorelai "Yes, we did agree to your plan. But then, when we heard Rory's side of the situation, changed our minds." It's not like they hadn't changed their minds about other things in the past (without denying they happened), and they never seemed reticent to tell Lorelai something they knew would anger her - so why was this situation different?  That one scene just seems completely out of character for them to me.

[shron17]

17 hours ago, TwirlyGirly said:

But that part you mentioned has always confused me, and I've always wished I could ask ASP what SHE had in mind for that scene, because it confuses me. Are we supposed to believe both Richard and Emily are suffering from amnesia, perhaps? Because they could have easily addressed the situation by telling Lorelai "Yes, we did agree to your plan. But then, when we heard Rory's side of the situation, changed our minds." It's not like they hadn't changed their minds about other things in the past (without denying they happened), and they never seemed reticent to tell Lorelai something they knew would anger her - so why was this situation different?  That one scene just seems completely out of character for them to me.

I think they simply refused to acknowledge that they had agreed to help Lorelai, probably because it was one of the few times she willingly asked for and accepted their help, and also as a matter of pride.

Edited April 17, 2018 by shron17

[TwirlyGirly]

Resurrecting this topic!

I came across something in S1/E6 "Rory's Birthday Parties" recently (it's amazing what you can pick up on the millionth time you watch something...😉).

Lorelai is talking to Michel in the kitchen at the Inn:

LORELAI: Oh, hey, Rory's birthday party is Saturday night so start thinking up reasons why you can't come.
MICHEL: I'm going to be out of town.
LORELAI: Oh, you used that last year.
MICHEL: I'll work on it and get back to you
LORELAI: 7:00, presents mandatory.

Not only did Michel's boss, Lorelai, demand he attend an event not work related (for his boss's child), for which he would not be paid, but also demanded he buy a gift for her child out of his own pocket!

The first few times I saw the episode, I thought Lorelai was saying "presence mandatory". That's bad enough. But the last time I turned on the CC, and it said "presents." I checked the transcript, and same thing.

That kind of demand made of an employee by their boss has to be illegal. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by TwirlyGirly

[chessiegal]

31 minutes ago, TwirlyGirly said:

That kind of demand made of an employee by their boss has to be illegal. 

Crappy yes - illegal I doubt it.

ETA: Spent 23 years as a federal employee - yes, that would be against policy, you could file a complaint. Private companies are another story. Depends on their policies.

Edited April 22, 2019 by chessiegal

[peacheslatour]

On 4/21/2019 at 5:06 PM, chessiegal said:

Crappy yes - illegal I doubt it.

ETA: Spent 23 years as a federal employee - yes, that would be against policy, you could file a complaint. Private companies are another story. Depends on their policies.

Yep, small privately run companies often evolve into almost family like hierarchies. Unless they're doing something blatantly illegal. It's just the way it is.

Another thing about R&E is that while constantly droning on about what's proper (Richard) and the expectations for people in their position (Emily) they were two of the rudest people I've ever seen. The way Emily speaks to hospital professionals and other staff, the stupid "society" crap they wanted to put Lorelai and ultimately did put Rory through and all the rest of their airs about being the upper crust they had worse manners than a ditch digger.

[paulina]

I'm so glad I found you. 

I'm watching all seasons right now, and I absolutely hate Lorelai. She is self-centered, selfish and a huge hypocrite. 

She thinks only abou herself, so often not thinking about Rory even. So disrespectful to her parents, when they trying to have any relationship with her. And she's so jealous of Rory when she's having any relationships with their grandparents.

And don't forget the episode when a wedding planner lost her job due another Lorelais funny joke with seating chart.

Oh, and I'm sure she will not marry Luke, and she will get back with Chris. And yet she blame her mother of that break up when she was the one having secret drinking date with him.

Edited July 13, 2019 by paulina