The two things in Chapter 8 that caught my attention was the how the educational system introduced movements, like the kindergarten movement to improve urban living quality and poverty, and the topic of home economics as a course.
One of the main purposes of the kindergarten movement was to mold the children so they can bring the values that they learn in school back home and share them with their parents. After reading this, I disagreed with the program because just because a person was of bad economic status does not mean they have no morals or virtues. Just because one is poor does not make them a bad person, and this is insulting to those who are just trying to make it out of the slums. If you were in this position, would you find it offensive and insulting for a program like this to exist?
Home economics as a course was interesting to me because in today’s society, women as just “housewives” is a little controversial. As a male, I do not take for granted how hard mainting a house is. My mom amazes me everyday when she is able to work til 9 in the city, and still come home to do house chores that are not finished. That is why whenever I can, I help out around the house. Back then, this class was relevant because the roles of women were perceived to be just housewives. In today’s society women are much more than that. So one question I pose is: Do you think that home economics is still relevant in today’s society?
