
I’ve been reading a 1923 home economics textbook. It’s fascinating to see the questions for papers and discussion in the book. Some of the questions we still ponder today. (Should children be paid for doing work in the home?) Others are too gender-based for comfort. (Should a boy have some training along the lines of household electricity, plumbing, and carpentry? What should a girl know of these things?)
Apparently then, as now, the gap between textbook writers and people in general could be substantial. By the time I hit junior high, and the home ec classes we took, I knew more about carpentry, car maintenance, and basic home repair than a good number of today’s young men. When I was growing up, it was assumed that my boy cousins should know how to cook, and that I should know how to change oil and change a tire. We never heard the term ‘gender,’ but we knew that everyone should have some basic life skills.
It sounds like you had wise parents and relatives who valued learning basic life skills by all.
Actually, most of those questions are not so bad. I noticed it did not mention how much your husband should be doing.
I also noticed that husband’s weren’t mentioned.
Actually, if you substituted ‘children’ for ‘girls’ or ‘boys’, these are quite good questions. Sadly, the last question probably should be left exactly as it is.
They are good questions! I agree with Margaret that if you just used the word children all around, the questions would be quite relevant!
You’re absolutely right – with minor tweaks these questions still are very relevent.
That’s a really good point. I like your suggestion to substitute “children” for “girls” or “boys.”
For 1923 these were very cutting edge questions! I imagine that WWI resulted in many women having the learn to do what they had previously relied on their husbands to do. And they were also forced to work outside the home just to make ends meet.
It is so important to consider the contextual factors.
So interesting to see how these topics were approached in this time period!