News Flash : Home Economics For Everyone

When I began reading Emily McCombs’ article “Home Sweet Home EC: from feminist roots to gender role reinforcement and back again, the history of home economics might surprise you” I was sure I would vehemently disagree with her thesis. After the first paragraph it appears as if she’s advocating for women to stay in the home. But that is not the whole story. In McCombs’ article she relays the history of home economics—which was actually founded by some of the first women to receive college educations—as it begins and then how public school curriculums and the popular media diluted it until it became the image we have today. Many of McCombs’ points have merit; she conveys how important the work of the home is, and how uneducated people are on the subject. I agree with her opinion that more praise should be given to this work and I stand by the idea that college-aged kids should learn about these life-skills. But where my issue with this article lies in the fact that she is only advocating for women to be educated in the field of home economics. If this is important work, which it is, then men should certainly be educated in it too.

In 1899 a group of women, who were college educated, mainly in the sciences, gathered in Lake Placid, NY. From this meeting the term “home economics” was born. Eventually this small group expanded and by 1909 they formed the American Home Economics Associated (AHEA). The issue these women faced was they had all this knowledge, but weren’t getting jobs because of the male dominated work force. According to Virginia Vincenti, Family and Consumer Sciences professor at the University of Wyoming and co-editor of Rethinking Home Economics, “Many of them were trained in science with limited opportunity to use it because of prejudice against women. So they decided to create their own field”(p.1, McCombs). They began applying all their knowledge into daily tasks of the household. They “envisioned an academic program on the college level that would value nutrition and food science over cooking, textiles and clothing construction over sewing and bacteriology and germ theory over household cleaning”(p.2, McCombs).  They wanted to establish this field as something more than it was seen as by the majority of people. And at the same time wanted to improve the practices in a household; by making food healthier, advanced cleaning practices, and cutting down on waste in terms of water, electricity and food.

 

Many colleges and universities were open to this idea, however many male figureheads kept trying to package the course as something far simpler than what it was. “Martha Van Kensselaer, who developed Cornell’s home economics department, attempted to take a bacteriology course In order to explain the importance of kitchen cleanliness to students, the male professor told her, ‘Oh, they do not need to know about bacteria. Teach them to keep the dish cloth clean because it is nicer that way’”(p.3, McCombs).

 

Similar misinterpretations took place on a younger education level as well. The programs in public middle and high schools have taken an image of something stereotypical of this field that the women of AHEA had not intended. McCombs blames these skewed curricula for diluting the image of home economics in our society.

 

As well, this group received intense backlash from many radical feminist, who viewed housework and the study of it as the antithesis to women’s liberation. Famed feminist Betty Friedan made comments on this effort at a women’s liberation convention that “were so incendiary, no records of them remains”(p.3, McCombs).

 

The complaints of these radical feminists have substantial merit. This movement has implications that could potentially be impeding on women trying to enter the work force. Barbara Ehrenreich discusses in her essay “Maid To Order” how the fact that women are viewed as the only gender that can perform housework is a continuing issue. “And when the person who is cleaned up after is consistently male, while the person who cleans up is consistently female, you have a formula for reproducing male domination from one gender to the next”(p.61, Ehrenreich). I whole-heartedly agree with McCombs’ points that the work done in a household is profoundly important, doesn’t get the recognition it deserve and should be part of the curriculum in colleges and universities. But the language in her article seems to perpetuate the notion that these responsibilities are only under the jurisdiction of women. However, if these courses did become mainstream at universities, then they have the potential to become required courses and in turn exposed to male students who—now better equipped with the tools necessary—can take part in the household tasks.

 

The AHEA listened to what the radical feminists had to say. Since these conventions they’ve made strides to make this movement not seem as suppressive towards women, “that rethinking eventually led to the curriculum-wide name change to Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) in 1992”(p.4, McCombs). According to the leaders of this program, the only hope for the future of this field is today’s college students. They hope this new title while help the course gain more approval and attract more students.

 

As a college student, I see the merit in a course such as FCS. Perhaps most importantly I can see how a course of this nature would positively impact the lives of many of my male peers who don’t see this type of knowledge as their responsibility.