The three models offered the home as an escape, an efficient path to better the community as a whole, and as the neighborhood for equality.
The haven model was designed by, Catherine Beecher. The idea was envisioned as the place where a family could escape the world to their haven which is entirely suited to the family’s needs. The mother is ready to bake and nurture her children while still being the perfect specimen for her husband. To achieve this goal the mother had to have the modern kitchen with all the advancements necessary to take ample care of her family. Beecher suggested: “that the housewife devote more of her lab
or to becoming an emotional support for her husband and an inspiring mother for her children. Self-sacrifice would be her leading virtue.” (Hayden 87) These women would not join the work force they would create their identity within the home while the husband would maintain the monetary aspect. Another feature of the home was isolation the house would be surrounded by nature and a garden for the family. In Hayden, Beecher believed “Nature surrounding the home reinforced belief in a woman’s natural, biologically determined role within it.” (88)
The industrial model was based off of August Bebel, a Marxist, who believed that the woman’s place was not within the home but in a factory where food would be made in mass quantities f
or the masses to purchase. Not only would food be taken care of but menial tasks, the tasks that Beecher described for a perfect mother, were to be done communally. All the privately done tasks of the mother would be done in a factory setting in order to help the whole population of the socialist state. This was replaced “by a sense that any day-care worker could offer a substitute for mother love and any canteen worker could serve up a substitute for home cooking.” (Hayden 89) The home would be small apartments that are “equipped with large mess halls, recreation clubs, child-care centers, and kitchenless apartments.”(Hayden 91) The women would work just like the men only segregated where the women would do laundry and bake pies. The natural setting of the Haven taken away for the good of the socialist state as whole where women wouldn't think biologically of their role to families but of their role to the state and efficiency.
The third model was designed by feminists, like Melusina Fay Pierce, who wanted women who knew these specialized tasks, like in Beecher’s haven, to still work their tas
ks for their families but instead be paid for them. As said by Jane Cunningham Croly “I demand for the wife who acts as a cook, as nursery-maid, or seamstress, or all three, fair wages… that the bearing and rearing of children be the best paid work.” (Hayden 91) The neighborhood approach shows some ties with that of the industrial model in that the women wanted wages for performing the tasks. And they would be using a communal area for the neighborhood in order to achieve their tasks such as cooking, laundry, and mending garments. This did require the wives to be well rounded and versed in the ways of sewing and housework. Though rather than being dependent on money and alienated like Beecher the women would have the communal aspect that the industrial model presents. Many appliances were made for large business use and were expensive and unavailable to the average house wife so the use of a communal work place was ideal for people who could not afford the fancy new appliances.
The neighborhood and industrious models were economically and socially beneficial ideas where women would have the chance to work outside the home and gain monetary gain. In the case of the neighborhood model this is a design that is in support of the equality of women. The haven model is the ideal capitalist strategy for homes and the industrious model is the major idea for a socialist system. But the three models have one tying factor; they never mention the role of the male in housework and care of children. (Haden 94)
Reference:
Hayden, Dolores. Redesigning the American dream: the future of housing, work, and family life. W. W. Norton & Company, 2002.
Resources for media:
http://charitygrace.wordpress.com/2009/07/
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/11/thomas-kinkade-effect.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4BQ4FfF7Qs&feature=related
No comments:
Post a Comment