A Dressmaker's Journey: Clothing Construction and Fashion Design as a Means of Feminist Expression

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

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.

Explaining the 'Ghetto'

One might wonder how I arrived at my blog name--although I suspect any Family and Consumer Scientists probably understands. Our discipline (or collection of disciplines) has long been as invisible and marginalized as women themselves. I want to be clear: I did not coin this term. Anyone who's visited the Cornell Home Economics Archive website (http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/) has seen the quote by Joan Jacobs Brumberg from her book, "The Body Project: an Intimate History of American Girls." If you read the entire excerpt that's found there, you'll see that our history is long and proud. Home Economics has helped to change the world for the better and create opportunities for women that otherwise never would have existed. Is Family and Consumer Sciences the same cutting edge discipline that Home Economics once was? It might sound ironic, given what comes to mind when one thinks of Home Economics (housewives baking cookies, that sort thing), but I think perhaps we lost our edge. I don't think we lost it because of our name change. Quite the contrary: I think our name change was necessary in part because we lost our edge. We stopped being an organization of firsts: the first academic discipline to study home and family life, the first female university deans, the first female faculty trustees... and I guess we became complacent. After all, when you do good work, people will notice...right? Unfortunately, no. We faded into obscurity, and the name change helped to speed that along.

What do you think about Family and Consumer Sciences today? Should we reclaim our feminist roots? What are the issues today that Family and Consumer Scientists should take a leadership role in shaping? What are the issues that we aren't discussing at annual meetings but should be?

I don't want this blog to be about me. (Strange, I know, since blogs tend to be an exercise in narcissism.) I want to get people inside and outside of FCS talking again. In my wildest dreams, I'd like to get us mobilized. I'm new to this blogging thing. If you're out there, say something.

Free Radicals

What could be so radical as something so traditional? We are Family and Consumer Scientists. What does that mean? Are we Home Economists? I'm not going to give you the "5 minute elevator" explanation. I'm going to give you the truth: we don't know what we are or who we are. Ellen doesn't live here anymore. Who's left? Just folks like me. Not strong and special like Ellen Richards, just ordinary and flawed. It's the ordinary and flawed folks that need to stand up and take notice right now. We need to figure out who we are and what we stand for. We need to reclaim Family and Consumer Sciences in the name of all the things it used to stand for: women's rights, support for families, nutritious (whole) foods, and a livable environment in which people can actually grow and thrive. We defined the family in a way that is still just as relevant and timely today as it was back in the 70s, but now we can't talk about diverse family forms without someone threatening to walk out of the room. Shame on us. We evolve, or we die. The flawed and ordinary among us must make a choice: do we wait for Ellen to rise from the ashes, or do we reclaim Family and Consumer Sciences, the discipline formerly known as Home Economics, in the name of the here and now? The choice is ours.