How can learning traditional skills such as clothing communication empower women? Provide financial security in a threatening world?
This is why I love Diane Rehm's show so much. Where else would you hear this?
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-17/gayle-tzemach-lemmon-dressmaker-khair-khana
Joan Jacobs Brumberg, Stephen H. Weiss Presidential Fellow and Professor of Human Ecology at Cornell University, called Home Economics "an important female ghetto," and asked, "What other group of American women did so much, all over the country, and got so little credit? " In the 21st century, we remain relevant, even as our programs are dismantled. Here's a place to come together and discuss pressing issues.
Showing posts with label family and consumer sciences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family and consumer sciences. Show all posts
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
New database gives consumers a chance to spot unsafe products before they buy | cleveland.com
More consumer information means more empowered consumers--and a healthier public. Thanks for passing this along, Cleveland.com.
New database gives consumers a chance to spot unsafe products before they buy | cleveland.com
New database gives consumers a chance to spot unsafe products before they buy | cleveland.com
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Are the Rich Getting Richer? The Data Say Yes - DailyFinance
60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. This is either a catastrophe waiting to happen, or a catastrophe in the process of happening. Do we care about working families? Do we care about rising inequality? We should. It is time for Family and Consumer Scientists, and indeed all Americans, to stand firmly behind families and consumers. No?
Take a look and American wage growth adjusted for inflation:
Bottom 20%
• 1975 household income: $12,664
• 2001 household income: $14,021
• increase: $1,357
• percentage increase from 1975: 10.7%
Middle 20%(a.k.a. "the middle class")
• 1975 household income: $39,807
• 2001 household income: $51,538
• increase: $11,731
• percentage increase from 1975: 29.4%
Top 20%
• 1975 household income: $91,848
• 2001 household income: $159,644
• increase: $67,796
• percentage increase from 1975: 73.8%
Top 5%(a.k.a. "the wealthy")
• 1975: $134,735
• 2001: $280,312
• increase: $145,577
• percentage increase from 1975: 108%
Data from from DailyFinance:http://srph.it/acaXmS
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The University of Arkansas has a new tool for family life education - Navigating Life's Journey | NCFR
The University of Arkansas's Cooperative Extension Service is offering a new, free resource: Navigating Life's Journey. You can sign up to receive weekly e-mails to help you improve your personal well-being and family relationships. The research-based ideas come from dozens of the world's best family life experts so you can trust that they are credible and will work in your life. There will also be a practical suggestion of how you can apply the idea to your life. Interested?
The University of Arkansas has a new tool for family life education - Navigating Life's Journey NCFR
The University of Arkansas has a new tool for family life education - Navigating Life's Journey NCFR
Monday, January 31, 2011
World Health: the past 200 years explained brilliantly
http://www.ncfr.org/about/news_read.asp?id=1942
Wasn't long ago that the entire world was poor and sick, but a rising tide has lifted most if not all the boats. Bad news is, as wealth and health have improved, so have disparities--not just between countries, but within them. This is just about the most entertaining and easy to follow explanation of world health trends I have ever seen. Enjoy.
Wasn't long ago that the entire world was poor and sick, but a rising tide has lifted most if not all the boats. Bad news is, as wealth and health have improved, so have disparities--not just between countries, but within them. This is just about the most entertaining and easy to follow explanation of world health trends I have ever seen. Enjoy.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
State of the Discipline
Things are changing, and from the looks of it, not for the better.
Membership is down, participation in annual meeting is down, programs are being closed and dismantled. Even worse, no one seems to know what or who we are, or even that we exist. Some even think that cable television is a suitable replacement for our long dead profession.
The state of the discipline is weak and uncertain, but not without hope.
Annual meeting must not simply be a social club, but also a place where serious work gets accomplished, and like-minded individuals can connect. We must leave feeling that we learned something of value that we couldn't have learned someplace else.
Research must be more than a word that is carelessly tossed about, it must be a passion that is rigorously pursued. Research, especially interdisciplinary research, must become a central part of our mission.
Policy, especially family policy, must be something that we take seriously and develop our own positions on (and, dare I dream, advocate for those positions?). Restating other organizations' position statements or recommendations does nothing but prove our own redundancy.
Controversy is not to be feared. It is to be tackled head on. We are adults. And if we're not, we don't deserve to call ourselves professionals.
Looking backward only serves us if we intend to use the past to inform the present and future.
To survive, we must first answer one simple question. What does AAFCS provide that is unique? The answer, in my opinion, has to do with the interdisciplinary and applied nature of the field. Let's focus on doing that well.
Who am I to give the state of the profession? I am the profession. So are all of you out there. Let's not wait for others to define us or write our obituary.
Membership is down, participation in annual meeting is down, programs are being closed and dismantled. Even worse, no one seems to know what or who we are, or even that we exist. Some even think that cable television is a suitable replacement for our long dead profession.
The state of the discipline is weak and uncertain, but not without hope.
Annual meeting must not simply be a social club, but also a place where serious work gets accomplished, and like-minded individuals can connect. We must leave feeling that we learned something of value that we couldn't have learned someplace else.
Research must be more than a word that is carelessly tossed about, it must be a passion that is rigorously pursued. Research, especially interdisciplinary research, must become a central part of our mission.
Policy, especially family policy, must be something that we take seriously and develop our own positions on (and, dare I dream, advocate for those positions?). Restating other organizations' position statements or recommendations does nothing but prove our own redundancy.
Controversy is not to be feared. It is to be tackled head on. We are adults. And if we're not, we don't deserve to call ourselves professionals.
Looking backward only serves us if we intend to use the past to inform the present and future.
To survive, we must first answer one simple question. What does AAFCS provide that is unique? The answer, in my opinion, has to do with the interdisciplinary and applied nature of the field. Let's focus on doing that well.
Who am I to give the state of the profession? I am the profession. So are all of you out there. Let's not wait for others to define us or write our obituary.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Healthcare Reform Debate Redux
Healthcare Affordability and Accessibility (aka Obamacare) is being debated yet again. Maybe it would be helpful if citizens actually informed themselves about what's in it. It's amazing how free politicians and pundits feel free to tell outright lies these days. Check politifact.com or factcheck.org. To get the simplest primer I've seen on what's in the healthcare reform law from a reliable source, go to:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
http://healthreform.kff.org/The-Animation.aspx
We all need to remember to write op-ed pieces for our local papers, to write our legislators, and to generally make it our business to correct the misinformation flying around.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Messing with the Six Months Exclusive Breastfeeding Recommendation: Hidden Boobytrap
Irresponsible reporting of findings--shouldn't AAFCS have something to say about this? Research findings funded by baby food companies seem to imply that infants shouldn't be breastfed exclusively for 6 months, as every health organization one can think of (WHO, APA, Health People, ADA, etc.) recommends. This information is going to be misunderstood by mothers and mothers-to-be, and certainly there's enough confusion and misinformation out there already about breastfeeding. We need to give good and accurate health and consumer information to consumers. The 6 month exclusive breastfeeding recommendation still stands. It has not changed. I certainly hope that mothers do not discontinue breastfeeding earlier because of the hype around this study, since the study itself does not suggest that would be wise. Family advocates, health educators...you know what you need to do. Get the word out!
Messing with the Six Months Exclusive Breastfeeding Recommendation: Hidden Boobytrap
Messing with the Six Months Exclusive Breastfeeding Recommendation: Hidden Boobytrap
Saturday, January 8, 2011
More Small Businesses Offering Healthcare Thanks to the New Healthcare Legislation
Bringing healthcare to more Americans is not just the moral thing to do, but it makes economic sense. Seems to me that a home economist would really appreciate the beauty of that. In fact, if there's any group of professionals who should make it their goal to inform consumers about what's in this law and how it will affect consumers (that is, FAMILIES), then it would be the dear old Family and Consumer Scientists. But where are we on this? Go to our website: this issue is non-existent. We seem to exist in a political and historical vacuum.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
End of Life Options
Who should be advocating for end of life options for elder Americans (or anyone with a terminal illness)? Family and Consumer Scientists, that's who. Where are we on this issue? So far, seems like we're silent. But the voices shouting about "death panels" and euthanasia are heard loud and clear. Lies, Damn Lies...and we all lose.
http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2011/01/the-new-year-in-health-care-reform-good-news-and-bad-for-older-americans
http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2011/01/the-new-year-in-health-care-reform-good-news-and-bad-for-older-americans
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Happy 2011!
And here are some of the policy issues we should pay attention to in the new year (drumroll?):
- repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (done, but yet to be implemented...long overdue)
- attempted repeal of healthcare reform (want to know what's in it? Go to http://healthreform.kff.org/)
- breastfeeding friendly workplace legislation being phased in (some good news--for more go to feed://www.whitehouse.gov/feed/blog/cwg) -- thanks to healthcare reform law
- attempt to privatize and otherwise whittle away at entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security
- Immigration Reform (http://www.asianjournal.com/dateline-usa/15-dateline-usa/8584-immigration-reform-needed-for-economic-growth-bloomberg.html; http://www.newsmax.com/US/DREAM-immigrationreform-CenterforImmigrationStudies-ACLU/2010/12/30/id/381465)
- attempted investigations of everything and everyone under the sun (to keep us good and distracted)
Why am I telling you this? I recall that the nation voted in a mostly new cast of characters who are talking a lot about compromise, bipartisanship, and working together for the good of the American people. I recall a lot of concern about the national debt. Someone will have to make sure these clowns remember their "mandate." If we don't do it, we'll only have ourselves to blame when all we get is a lot of theatrics and no results.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Isn't it Quaint? More Nostalgia for Home Economics
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/23/132230490/elegantly-old-school-nostalgia-books-on-the-rise
Isn't it sweet and old fashioned? In this book review on NPR's morning edition, I heard more nostalgia for what we are left to assume is the long dead field of Home Economics. And, of course, Martha Stewart was mentioned yet another time as the modern instantiation of Home Ec. What is most disconcerting to me is that our field has not become irrelevant, but invisible. If Home Economics is seen as old fashioned, Family and Consumer Sciences is not seen at all. As schools continue to make budget cuts, FCS programs remain vulnerable. No one can support programs that they apparently do not know about. Family and Consumer Scientists: let's stop rebranding and start advocating. Strongly.
Isn't it sweet and old fashioned? In this book review on NPR's morning edition, I heard more nostalgia for what we are left to assume is the long dead field of Home Economics. And, of course, Martha Stewart was mentioned yet another time as the modern instantiation of Home Ec. What is most disconcerting to me is that our field has not become irrelevant, but invisible. If Home Economics is seen as old fashioned, Family and Consumer Sciences is not seen at all. As schools continue to make budget cuts, FCS programs remain vulnerable. No one can support programs that they apparently do not know about. Family and Consumer Scientists: let's stop rebranding and start advocating. Strongly.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Consumer Education, Economics, and Resource Management: Lessons from Seinfeld
This could be really useful for teaching any FERM related class--on any level. http://www.yadayadayadaecon.com/
What could be more relevant than sitcom reruns? This is gold, Jerry! Gold!
What could be more relevant than sitcom reruns? This is gold, Jerry! Gold!
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Real Science
Reorganization revisited: STEMM (Science Technology Engineering Math and Medicine) has become the new buzz word in higher education. It's where we're told the money is, and of course the name of the game is inevitably attracting new sources of revenue rather than actually educating students. Students of course, are and will remain our #1 source of revenue--never mind that educating the is supposed to be our primary mission.
So now we're in a perverse situation in which all units on campus attempt to fit themselves in the STEMM mold. And if we define "science" and "medicine" broadly, then I think we're talking about a large and diverse collection of programs that could fit under that very broad umbrella. But if we're all STEMM, then it ceases to be special (and specialized).
The question I keep coming to is whether we can truly build the large, diverse, and interconnected group of programs and faculty members needed to really build the kind of STEMM program that reflects the true and inclusive definitions of "science" and "health." Whose programs don't involve science at all? Or math? Or health? If the tent expands as it should, then the "specialities" will no longer feel so special. The "hard sciences" will lose their current place in the university hierarchy. The culture of the university has shown itself time and time again to be resistant to change, and those with status are always hesitant to give it up.
Let us not forget that sexism works into this in insidious ways. Those programs, like Human Ecology/FCS, tend to be viewed as traditionally feminine and are certainly female dominated. It is difficult for the "real scientists" to see themselves as having anything to gain from having us join their exclusive club. But time and time again, we learn how badly our perspective is needed. Healthcare cannot be delivered optimally without a comprehensive view of health that includes physical, mental, and spiritual health. We cannot deliver it only with specialists who do not understand the person as a whole functioning human being, but as a set of physical systems that house a disease. We can't ensure that we have healthy individuals without ensuring families are also functional. Workplaces must be less stressful. Consumers' interests must be understood and served. Nutrition and food safety are essential as well; in order to get the nutrition into people, we need to go shopping, go home, prepare food, serve it, and eat it together (we hope). This "feminine" orientation comes as natural to us as breathing, but comes as a revelation to those who consider themselves real scientists. The reality is that they need us much more than we need them.
So now we're in a perverse situation in which all units on campus attempt to fit themselves in the STEMM mold. And if we define "science" and "medicine" broadly, then I think we're talking about a large and diverse collection of programs that could fit under that very broad umbrella. But if we're all STEMM, then it ceases to be special (and specialized).
The question I keep coming to is whether we can truly build the large, diverse, and interconnected group of programs and faculty members needed to really build the kind of STEMM program that reflects the true and inclusive definitions of "science" and "health." Whose programs don't involve science at all? Or math? Or health? If the tent expands as it should, then the "specialities" will no longer feel so special. The "hard sciences" will lose their current place in the university hierarchy. The culture of the university has shown itself time and time again to be resistant to change, and those with status are always hesitant to give it up.
Let us not forget that sexism works into this in insidious ways. Those programs, like Human Ecology/FCS, tend to be viewed as traditionally feminine and are certainly female dominated. It is difficult for the "real scientists" to see themselves as having anything to gain from having us join their exclusive club. But time and time again, we learn how badly our perspective is needed. Healthcare cannot be delivered optimally without a comprehensive view of health that includes physical, mental, and spiritual health. We cannot deliver it only with specialists who do not understand the person as a whole functioning human being, but as a set of physical systems that house a disease. We can't ensure that we have healthy individuals without ensuring families are also functional. Workplaces must be less stressful. Consumers' interests must be understood and served. Nutrition and food safety are essential as well; in order to get the nutrition into people, we need to go shopping, go home, prepare food, serve it, and eat it together (we hope). This "feminine" orientation comes as natural to us as breathing, but comes as a revelation to those who consider themselves real scientists. The reality is that they need us much more than we need them.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Change, FCS, and Life...Lessons Learned from Mad Men
"Let’s also say that change is neither good or bad. It simply is. It can be greeted with terror or joy. A tantrum that says, ‘I want it the way it was’ or a dance that says, ‘Look, it’s something new.
(Mad Men, "Love Among the Ruins" -- Season 3, Episode 2)
We're all in a process of change, whether we realize it or not. You can fear it, you can embrace it, or you can quietly accept it. The important thing is this: change shouldn't just happen to you, you need to be the change you want to see in the world. Don't resist change, shape it. Progress is never a passive or painless process.
“Real progress is often retarded by trying to make the new fit into the old scheme of things.” -Ellen Richards
Happy holidays and new year to everyone in the blogosphere.
(Mad Men, "Love Among the Ruins" -- Season 3, Episode 2)
We're all in a process of change, whether we realize it or not. You can fear it, you can embrace it, or you can quietly accept it. The important thing is this: change shouldn't just happen to you, you need to be the change you want to see in the world. Don't resist change, shape it. Progress is never a passive or painless process.
“Real progress is often retarded by trying to make the new fit into the old scheme of things.” -Ellen Richards
Happy holidays and new year to everyone in the blogosphere.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
One student assaulted on campus is one too many
Knowledge is power. Students and faculty need to advocate for better campus policies.
One Student provides students and their allies with programs, resources and opportunities to address sexual violence. .http://onestudent.org/
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Gender Equality and Fair Pay
One reason that Home Economics (now Family and Consumer Sciences) has been called a femal ghetto is because the professionals, mostly women, who work in these fields are so underpaid. Even within universities, professors teaching in FCS units are among the lowest paid. For me, the Paycheck Fairness Act was a refreshing and welcome acknowledgement of what most women know all too well: women work more cheaply than their male counterparts. The irony is, in these troubling times, our willingness to work cheap, take on the jobs of more than one person, and our increasing majorities among recipients of bachelors and masters degrees have advantaged women in this highly competitive market place. It's a sad irony, to be sure. There are those who do not beleive that gender inequality exists anymore, if it ever existed. In fact, there are those who disagree vehemently with anything resembling civil rights legislation, and those voices seem to get increasingly louder.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)