-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- y8 happy wheels on 1950s Ads/commercials aimed at Women
- gorzow nieruchomosci on 19th century Household Technology
- When it comes to personal loans USA | 7N4ctwqy on Pros vs Cons of Gay Marriage
- idaho virtual office on Experience of Surrogacy
- Gansu, said construction lax control caused the day of a highspeed 31 kilo | www.louboutinpascher1221magasin.frkalF on Surrogacy in India
Frequent Topics
- 20th century
- 1950s
- Adolescents
- american dream
- anonymous
- birth
- census 2011
- childhood obesity
- children
- children under 2
- chores
- Christian fundamentalist
- commercial
- consumerism
- eugenics
- Family
- female targets
- Foucault
- gay
- Gay Marriage
- guest workers
- home economics
- homosexuality
- Homosexual Warning
- household roles
- Immigrants Hope Their 'American Dream' Isn't Fading
- kitchen
- majority not white
- marketing
- Media & Advertising
- minorities
- motherhood
- New York Times
- privacy
- Pros vs Cons of Gay Marriage
- school
- segmented marketing
- Slavery
- Social Media
- social network
- surrogacy
- television
- us population
- women
Archives
Categories
Meta
Tag Archives: motherhood
1 baby – 8 Mothers
I came upon an article of January of this year. Since we discussed home economics in class, I thought this might apply. Unlike the Amy Sue Bix article, whose focus was on the equipment program under home economics, this relates more to the branch of child development. This article came from ABC news and it is called “Practice Babies’: 1 Orphan Raised by 8 Mothers”. In the time when home economics was becoming quite popular and many women were attending colleges who offered degrees in this field, Cornell University was one of them. Surprisingly enough Ivy League Cornell offered the Home Economics degree, tuition free for these women. In 1919 as the final project for graduation for these women they initiated a program called the “practice baby program”. This required 8 women, up to 12, to care for a baby in an apartment. Then after 6 weeks the baby would be passed on two another set of women for up to 2 years, when finally they would be adopted. For those 6 weeks they care for the child 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week, along with other household chores part of their curriculum. They mention that one of these women might put the baby down for a nap to be later picked up by another woman. These babies were offered by the welfare program (loaned by orphanages) for the benefit of “science”.
The babies were anonymous since they were infants, but they were all branded with the name Denny Domecon (surname: domestic economy). After leaving the child would have no contact with the multiple caregivers or vice versa. According to Keating, an archivist at Cornell:
“The program was an early testing-ground for consumer research, a “gateway for early education for a different group of women who were so well educated”
The program was later dropped in 1969 when new research pushed society into the benefits of having a primary caregiver. But that wasn’t before Life magazine ran an article in 1952 glorifying the program. The apartments were later used as day care center. I’ve included a video of one of these women caregivers who got their degree in Home Economics from Cornell in 1925. Also a picture of the article from Life (“The Making of a Home: Cornell Girls Study for Their Big Job.”) Both of these women are the same person.
Posted in Assignment 4
Tagged 1950s, 20th century, children, consumerism, home economics, household roles, motherhood, women
3 Comments
“Was I a child abuser? Did I leave my children alone and go out to a bar? Was I on crack? “
While doing research on what does it mean to be an “unfit mother”, I came upon an article on the New York Times, called “Losing Custody of My Hope”. I always thought this term to be quite subjective, but at the same time I believe there are some highly indisputable reasons you might think someone is “unfit”. For example, a mother who is a drug addict, or physically or sexually abuses their children would be considered in most people’s eyes as unfit.
This article is written by a woman who tells her story as a divorce woman force into a custodial battle for her 3 children by her ex-husband. According to the ex-husband, she was unfit and sued her for full custody of their children. As you read more into the case, you realize that they ex-husband’s grounds for such allegations are unfounded. Both were subjected to various exams/license procedures to try to prove who can be the better parent. I was very surprised to see that he was able to make such accusations and still tell her that he didn’t feel like she was a “bad mother per se” but feels like he can be a better “primary caregiver”. It is stated in the article that he didn’t spend enough time with his children when they were still together due to his career as a civil engineer. I’m a little taken aback because although it is not stated I feel like what evidence he had to support this claim when he went to the courts. What made him underestimate her motherhood and overestimate his job as a father? How do courts evaluate “unfit”? Part of my problem is that in a country with a myriad of cultures, can one prevent favoring one set of qualities provided by one culture, over the others.