Headscratchers / Leave It to Beaver

• How come Eddie Haskell always got crapped on by Beaver and Wally's parents despite the glaring fact over the course of the series, that Larry, Gilbert, and Whitey got Beaver in trouble far more often than Eddie got Wally in trouble. Almost every episode revolves around them getting Beaver into some kind of jam and Ward or June or Wally having to bail him out. How about raking them over the coals for a change?
  • Because they started out as 14-15-year-olds and aged from there, and the sort of trouble they would get into would either: 1) Be so mild that they'd have to be Too Dumb to Live not to deal with it themselves (as happened to Beaver in later seasons), or 2) Quickly turn the show into a serious, hard-hitting Teen Drama that would've been unheard-of to air in The '50s.
  • Plus, it's Eddie's two-faced personality that Ward and June (particularly June), find irritating. They're well aware of his mean-spirited attitude and his questionable behavior, even when he's not with the boys, but then he comes to their house and is overly polite to the point of being fake.
• Does anyone notice that during the later seasons, it was Wally who was constantly getting into trouble, with Beaver becoming more of an observational character?
  • Yes, this was an effort on the writers' part to push Wally into the spotlight and establish his character as having more depth beyond just being Beaver's older brother, as Jerry Mathers had been growing up and it was generally agreed that he no longer had the charm to play the goofy roles that got him into trouble in the early seasons (that didn't stop him from continuing to behave like a kid though), thus giving Wally the chance to shine.
• The sweater that Ward and June reluctantly allowed Beaver to buy with his own money, then he learns he actually bought a girls sweater, which he tried to ditch to avoid admitting he made a mistake in buying the sweater in the first place. Ward and June seem understanding enough when they learn the truth, but their solution to the problem is to just give the sweater away. That's all well and good, surely someone could have gotten some use out of the sweater, but couldn't they have let Beaver return the sweater and get his money refunded back? Especially considering they wanted that money put aside for his future college savings anyway. Or, did they feel it would have been a better lesson in financial responsibility to teach him not to waste his money on something foolish like this?