02/21/14 09:44 - ID#58714

Thoughts on Mrs. Jellyby

So, I've been reading Dickens' "Bleak House" lately and made it to chapter four where the reader is introduced to Mrs. Jellyby.

Mrs. Jellyby is a philanthropist whose latest project involves coffee cultivation in Africa that is meant to be for the ultimate good of the natives as well as those who have settled there. Mrs. Jellyby is described as a woman of "remarkable strength of character" by Mr. Kenge before the main character reaches her house to find many young children, dirty, with one who has gotten his head stuck between two iron railings. After the main character helps this boy out, they are led upstairs to meet Mrs. Jellyby, and as they are going up they hear another little Jellyby falling down the stairs. They are introduced to Mrs. Jellyby, who is not at all bothered by the sound of one of her children falling down the stairs. She is described as having eyes that have a "curious habit of seeming to look a long way off...as if...they could see nothing nearer than Africa." She is extremely unkempt, her house is a wreck (with the curtains in one of the rooms being fastened with a fork), she has relegated her eldest daughter to do nothing but dictate letters on her African project, and her husband is an inconsequential man who doesn't say anything and fades into the background. In short, she has focused her efforts on everything else but her home.

When I was reading this, I couldn't help but wonder if I was a Mrs. Jellyby. It made me wonder whether I have sacrificed too much on the domestic side of things in order to focus on my passions. I'll openly admit that I have an "I want to save the world" complex, and this is a long running between me and Matt at home. I'll also openly admit that domestic tasks are not my first priority, but I can't go so far as to say that's a fault. Do I think Mrs. Jellyby is right to ignore her children and the house around her to the degree she does? No. But, my answer would be the same if this were Mr. Jellyby we were talking about. Further, it's my opinion that men who sacrifice everything in their home life, even if they leave it to their significant other to pick up the pieces, are no better (but there hasn't been much criticism about that form of neglect).

I think that it's good to have passion, and to stand up for what you believe in. I think there is more to life for women than cleaning up and taking care of children. I think that children are better off when they have a strong female model that has passions but also is there to be a guide, and I don't believe women have to choose between having a career and having children.

As for Dickens' Mr. Jellyby, the book seems to paint him as a victim of his wife's disinterest in her house, but I can't agree there either. He has a responsibility not to sit idly by if he is so miserable. If your wife isn't good at taking care of kids, don't have so many, get a nanny, or do it yourself!! If you don't like that your household is a mess, than get off your ass and clean it. Yes, I said it. Men, you can get up and clean your household if it's not as clean as you would like it. Allowing yourself to become nothing but an afterthought is no one's fault but your own. I have no patience for this theory that strong women=neutered men.

Why am I ranting about Dickens' views on feminism as illustrated in an 1852 novel? I'm ranting because this line of thinking is still prevalent today. How many times must we hear about how things are so horrible today because women have gone to work? There are lots of things, other than the rise of feminism, that can be attributed to that.

So, while I may be like Mrs. Jellyby in some respects, I know that I've done my best to balance my home life with my other passions, responsibilities, etc., and I will not feel guilty about my choices simply because I am a woman.

metalpeter writes at 07:47:39 02/22/14 - Comment #71371: Now I've never had a desk job so I don't know.... But I'm guessing just a guess that the European Model is better... I say this because .. People who have a good and fun (but not to much time away from work kind of fun) environment are more productive .... If you go into work dreading it makes it hard to work... Being pissed off though can push one in a physical job to do more...... I don't want to say to much but my Job went from decent with some anger causing things but dealable to miserable and a made like 4 errors that I never make I caught them.... I do like that in Europe they give you more time to take and you do.. I might be a bit Biased cause where I work we have so much work and if one guy slacks off it puts the work on other people... Same thing with some days off.... Think here in the states they give you time but use and it is looked down on.... Yes in past I got in trouble for using to much sick time (mental health day have to lie if you have kids that are sick you have to lie... Call in with my kid is sick taking to doctor even with note not paid ) ... Sorry for rant on your post ............

uncutsaniflush writes at 07:38:07 02/22/14 - Comment #71370: Upon rereading what I wrote last night, I think I may have come across stronger or harsher than I intended. Sorry about that.

When I was talking about the marginalization (perhaps not the best word) of working women in feminist doctrine, I was thinking of the so-called "third wave" feminists of the 1990s who said that the feminism was too white and upper middle-class. They wanted feminism to be more inclusive of social class and race.

metalpeter writes at 07:37:58 02/22/14 - Comment #71369: Every worker is different some people care about what they do some don't , some people work very hard, some people not so much, some people spend more time figuring out how they will do the work then doing, some people can do the work at home thing .... I not saying that people are paid for their value (wish they where) ... In fact I think where I work my value should give me a higher rate of pay then I'm at (but no one knows what any else get paid but that is a different story) .... Now I'm not saying that all women in a family are the ones who do all that stuff... If they are a nurse they can't leave so dad has to do all that.... (I've worked with men who picked up the kids and where the ones who did that) .... But the nurse thing is an example of why women make less money then men... yes there are some women doctors of course and there are some male nurses... I don't have stats but from what I've seen growing up doctors are higher in the pay scale then nurses so that throws of the gender equality thing.... I'm also not saying women should be paid less... I like the idea of equal work equal pay... But it isn't fair if on monday the guys come in hung over from watching football and don't do anything they shouldn't be paid the same as the person who works all day..... I'm not saying that women shouldn't be paid for maternity leave and I like that their job is protected.... But the fact is that unless it is a job they can do from home, someone else has to do that work and be trained in it or be brought in.... Thankfully I'm not a boss or Manager but that does take away from their value....

thechefsky writes at 06:17:25 02/22/14 - Comment #71368: I think that your argument depends on how you define value. I would say that more time at work doesn't necessarily make you more valuable. For instance, a person with a family may be better at using their time efficiently than someone who doesn't. The same goes for quality of work. The woman who has to take off because her kid is sick may be better qualified to do the job than her male counterpart. Also, I don't believe in this model where people must be chained to their desks to produce. I haven't done the research myself, but I've heard that European countries have work models where people work less, but they employ more people to get the work done. So, your spreading the cost of production across more people and people are not overworked.

metalpeter writes at 01:59:45 02/22/14 - Comment #71361: I'm going to take some shit for this at that is ok ....
1. Never read Dickens
2. Women do make less then men but there is a difference between how much they make and how much they make for doing the same job... look at athletes more people watch mens sports so there is more money ....
3. But see what no one wants to admit is if you have a women and a man in the same job... The women has less worth.... When or if she gets pregnant she get paid for maternity leave for not working... When the kids get sick she is the one that goes home and again gets paid for not being there... When their is a school thing again she is the one that leaves ... In terms of making money they have less value... This is not only true of women this is true of people with families over single people... When my "Baby" is sick got to stay home in bed with her or when horny it is a sick day again I'm paid for this... but single people don't call in sick cause they don't have a reason to unless really sick.... This is also true of say in some jobs people with out families cause they will work holidays.... Every employee has a different value in the work force.... in some places it works the other way... Women bring men into some places like bars so they have more value ......

thechefsky writes at 08:44:52 02/22/14 - Comment #71358: First, I'm not sure how someone can argue that feminism marginalized lower class women, when they were already marginalized. Second, I'm not clear where in all my comments that you got the impression that I don't value all the women that have gone before me or that I don't appreciate single working class women, because I do. But none of this changes our realities. Third, I recognize that I have more choices than women did before, but that doesn't mean that today's inequalities and double standards are acceptable.

uncutsaniflush writes at 01:26:21 02/22/14 - Comment #71357: Just for the record, radical critics of 20th Century feminism say 20th Century feminists are the ones that say that working class women didn't matter. Don't lay that shit on me. I grew up in a single parent working class home. My mom was one of the women that feminism marginized because of her class. She didn't have a choice. In the 1960s, it was work or die. It didn't matter if she had a child. I suggest that when you think about how much your life sucks, you should think about all the women that were born before you. Without these brave women, you wouldn't have the choices that you do today.

uncutsaniflush writes at 12:20:04 02/22/14 - Comment #71354: I am lucky that I have led a charmed life (though not everyone might see it as such). I reap the benefits of institutional racism and sexism because of my race and gender.

Since I have a voice, I use it to defend and protect those who don't have a voice. I use my voice to advocate for the people that our society says doesn't matter.

People of good will all fight the good fight. I am fortunate that I can focus on fighting for the rights of others.

thechefsky writes at 11:28:28 02/21/14 - Comment #71353: Uncut, I get that they were supposed the Mr. and Mrs. were supposed to be figures of fun (and they were), which is why I like Dickens, but I do think there was a critique of women who choose to put their attention elsewhere. As far as things today are concerned, we certainly aren't where we were in 1852, but it is very real that women are still held to different standards than men, they don't earn as much, and they still are expected to handle work and home life issues much more so than men. I know this from personal experience, and I don't think I just happen to be trapped within some dying breed of Americans that still doesn't get it. I think these are still very real situations that women are dealing with every day. I acknowledge that women in lower classes did work, but, as you said, they didn't matter and their homes were expected to be a wreck and their kids unkempt. I'm more focused on what society sees as acceptable for those that it does recognize.

uncutsaniflush writes at 11:16:08 02/21/14 - Comment #71352: I concur with YesThatCasey. In Victorian times, women worked in factories and textile mills and even coal mines. But they were not middle class or upper class women so they didn't matter. In the working class, women have pretty always worked since the industrial age. The idea of feminism and women working was a middle and upper class phenomenon. Working class women had no choice. In a very real sense, it was work or die. On the other hand, middle and upper class women did have a choice, they could stay at home and be supported by their spouse or choose to get employment outside the home.

YesThatCasey writes at 11:03:32 02/21/14 - Comment #71351: "...this line of thinking is still prevalent today."

I'd question this claim. There is a dwindling segment of western cultures that still maintains this belief, but overall I'd say this is very much a dying breed. They attract a great deal of attention, but this attraction is precisely because of how ridiculous this mindset is given our current understandings.

That said, your post, and uncut's response, really make me think I need to go back and read some Dicken's.

uncutsaniflush writes at 10:55:21 02/21/14 - Comment #71350: I've not read Bleak House in over 20 years, but, if my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does - both Mr. and Mrs Jellyby were supposed to be figures of fun (if not ridicule) to Dickens' readers. I think it is very important to remember whilst reading Dickens that he wrote with a deep sense of irony.

Dickens uses irony verbally, dramatically, and situationally. And sometimes, he does all three in the same paragraph.

Dickens wrote Bleak House during the reign of Queen Victoria. This helped shape the perception of women in Dickens' readers. The idea that a strong, capable, intelligent woman might exist was not a foreign one to them. Their country was led by one.

Permalink: Thoughts_on_Mrs_Jellyby.html
Words: 722
Last Modified: 02/21/14 09:44