Sufficient Rainfall: Crops Making Promising Progress

19-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today: 

Tuesday, July 14, 1914:  It’s raining some these days. One can even tire of the rain for a time.

DSC04615

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Grandma—

I understand! I tire of rain very quickly, too. But rain is good.

It looks like Pennsylvania (and most of the rest of the country) is getting enough rain, and the crops are doing well. I bet that your father is happy.

Source: Wall Street Journal (July 15, 1914)

Source: Wall Street Journal (July 15, 1914)

 

Acme Dress Form Advertisement

19-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today: 

Friday, July 10 – Saturday, July 11, 1914:  Forgot the particulars of these days.

Source: Ladies Home Journal (February, 1914)

Source: Ladies Home Journal (February, 1914)

 Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Since Grandma didn’t write any specific for this date, I’ll share an advertisement that I found for Acme Dress Forms. I knew a few people who had dress forms when I was a kid. Does anyone have them anymore?

CSAs of Yesteryear

19-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today: 

Thursday, July 9, 1914: Nothing doing.

Source: Vegetable Gardening (1914)

Source: Vegetable Gardening (1914)

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Since Grandma didn’t write much, I’m going to go off on a tangent. I was surprised to discover that some vegetables were marketed using a method similar to modern CSAs (community support agriculture) a hundred years ago.

H.B. Fullerton, of Long Island, has developed a package which he calls the home hamper. This is filled with a seasonable variety of vegetables and expressed directly to the consumer at stated times as may be agreed on.

This gives the customers the variety of vegetables they may desire and enables them to obtain them fresh. A cut of this hamper is shown in Fig. 58.  A certain priced hamper is usually agreed on for the season or for the year.

Vegetable Gardening (1914) by Samuel B. Green

A Hundred Years Ago Chicago Schools Had a Female Superintendent!

19-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today: 

Monday, July 6, 1914:  Nothing doing

Ella Flagg YoungPhoto caption: Probably the most distinguished and influential superintendent of schools in this country, and especially revered in the West—Mrs. Ella Flagg Young, pictured in the electric runabout in which she goes from school to school. Married teachers are not discriminated against in Chicago, and the records in Mrs. Young’s office show that their efficiency marks are as high as those of unmarried teachers. (Source: Good Housekeeping. January, 1914)

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Since Grandma didn’t write much a hundred years ago today, I thought you might enjoy this photo and caption that I found in an 1914 issue of Good Housekeeping.

Until I saw it I didn’t know that there were any female school superintendents back then—though I’m appalled that Chicago Schools considered it necessary to analyze whether married teachers were as efficient as unmarried ones. Thank goodness it turned out that they were.

(An aside: I wonder how they measured teacher effectiveness back then. Hmm. . . . maybe I’ll have to research that for a future post.)

Feather Imports Banned

19-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today: 

Sunday, July 5, 1914:  Our new preacher took up his charge today. Am glad that one is secured at last.

Source: Ladies Home Journal (March, 1914)

Source: Ladies Home Journal (March, 1914)

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

The McEwensville Baptist Church had a few difficult months. It hadn’t had a minister since January—and it must be have been a relief to finally have a new pastor.

Did Grandma wear a hat to church? . . . with feathers? Did she know that some bird species were endangered because of the demand for feathers?

Our Girls’ Hats

The new feather law prohibits the importation into this country of feathers of wild birds, and it is being rigidly enforced.

We hope that our girls, everywhere, will realize what it means to wear the plumage of song-birds in their hats. Beautiful and becoming hats can now be made without the sacrifice of our feathered friends.

The appalling destruction of birds for milady’s hat is proved by figures from the last six feather sales in London this year: Crowned pigeons, 21,318; macaw wings, 5,794 pairs; quills of the white crane, 20715; hummingbirds, 4112; birds of paradise, 17,711; Of the kingfisher, one of the birds of bright plumage to be found on the English and Irish lakes, the skins of no less than 215,500 were on sale.

Isn’t that a terrible arraignment against the vanity of women who adorn themselves with the plumage of the birds?

Farm Journal (June, 1914)

Source: Ladies Home Journal (March, 1913)

Source: Ladies Home Journal (March, 1913)

1914 O-Cedar Mop Advertisement

19-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today: 

Monday, June 22, 1914:  Had quite a time at rubbing and washing today, and it wasn’t here at home either. We are going to have the church fixed over, and it was necessary to wash off the walls. One girl upset her bucket of water off a step ladder. Had to laugh. I was up near the ceiling, and my laughing made me dizzy. Came down off that ladder and staid down. Didn’t want a fate like the bucket.

Source: Ladies Home Journal (January, 1914)

Source: Ladies Home Journal (January, 1914)

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

What fun. . . and what a mess! Did they use an O-Cedar Mop to clean it up?

What is Feminism?

19-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today: 

Friday, June 19, 1914: Simply nothing.

Recent picture of McEwensville

Recent picture of McEwensville

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Nothing days are good days to contemplate deep questions. Did Grandma ever ask herself questions like: Do I believe that women should have more rights?. . . Am I a feminist? . . .

Here’s the beginning of an article on feminism that was in the May, 1914 issue of Good Housekeeping:

What is Feminism?

Has the question reached your hometown yet? If it has not, it soon will. And if the people in your home town are like the people in mine, the answers will be various and sundry—as many different answers probably as there are people.

“Femi-what?” your average citizen will venture. “Feminism? Something about women, isn’t it?”

“It’s the woman’s movement”—“It’s the furthering of the interests of women”—“It’s the revolt of the women”—”It’s the assertion of woman’s right to individual development”—“It’s the doctrine of freedom for women”—“It’s woman’s struggle for the liberation of her personality”—

The suggestions have crowded one on the heels of the other so rapidly, and so dogmatically, during this early part of the twentieth century, that the onlooker may be forgiven for deciding that there are a so many definitions of feminism as there are feminists.

Yet what distinguishes the contribution of the times on the subject is the really synthetic effort back of all the definitions, the effort to get “the woman question” assembled on a broader base than any from which it has as yet been projected. Higher education for women, economic opportunity for women, right of person and property for women, political enfranchisement for women—all begin as parts of something greater, vaster.

Whether or not we have found it in feminism is still an open question. Some draw back because they say, it means too much. Some don’t like it because they say it doesn’t mean enough. Some want the woman question to stay concentrated upon suffrage. . .

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 940 other followers