Upon rereading this section and doing elementary research on Ellen Richards, I've concluded that I was misled by Spring's summary introduction of this sections, in that I assumed when he cited " home economic experts" of the day that he meant men, when in fact the term "home economics" was only coined by Ellen Richards herself at the convention of the 1899 Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics. It seems to me that Spring places Richards in a context to demean the academic integrity of her studies, because he does not mention in what specific field her degree was from MIT, which was a Bachelor's of Science in Chemistry, nor does he cite the fact that she fought the institution for the opportunity to earn her doctorate degree, but that they adamantly refused to give such a distinction to a woman.
I am glad to have the increased knowledge of such a pioneering woman in the field of education, though I admit I still find conflict with what seems, based on Spring's depiction of the movement, to be a settling for a study of a less academic, or less scientific arena of domestic science. I am inclined to scoff at the notion of the "professionalization of the domestic housewife", as I consider that phrase to be an oxymoron. Simply put, there is no professional license or even proof of any kind of achievement or engagement of study to fit the role of domestic housewife. Now, it could also be argued that the role as commonly conceived is a social construct in itself, and the word by it's very etymological nature defines and supports the biased gender divisions of labor in the society of this time. My argument originates from an intolerance to accept domestic duties, or those relating to the management of the home, as a sole or even primary responsibility of a woman, wife or otherwise. Further, such entrenchment of biased gender roles not only directly contributes to the obstacles she is to find in her pursuit of equality in all things afforded to men, but it also quells and suppresses any attempts at societal change or advancement of an equality perspective.
I am compelled to ask the question as to why a woman as passionate about attaining knowledge of the sciences as Ellen Richards would agree and promote a system of grooming women to be not anything different than "the best domestic housewife", under the guise of an academic education, nonetheless. I am not saying that certain knowledge that she undoubtedly advocated be taught regarding sanitation, chemistry, or basic scientific principles was pointless, but that it had ought to have not been limited to domestic application, because such limitations can only reinforce that there is a cap on academic pursuits/opportunities for women, and it is at the level of housework. I found a quote from Richards explaining why she was interested in and advocated for the study of home economics: "Perhaps the fact that I am not a radical and that I do not scorn womanly duties but claim it as a privilege to clean up and sort of supervise the room and sew things is winning me stronger allies than anything else." (Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, 2006) This was likely true, as it can logically be presumed that her future accomplishments in the field of science were endorsed, promoted, and sustained by male "allies" in the field, given the lack of opportunities awarded to women in the professional world.
In conclusion, I have decided that while I am proud of Ellen Richards for her relentless and determined pursuit of her own education, as well as for her professional achievements and contributions to the scientific community, I do not idolize her acquiescence of the relegation of certain aspects of science to be aimed at what is a blatant method of maintaining the role of women to be managers of the house, and thus pre-defining their intellectual abilities to the scope of domesticity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Swallow_Richards 7/9/2012
" Ellen Richards." 2012. Biography.com 12 Jul 2012, 11:35 http://www.biography.com/people/ellen-richards-9457351 7/9/2012
No comments:
Post a Comment