The mothercraft manual

by Mary L. Read

What is the consequence? A generation of women, the majority of whom are notoriously (and sometimes shamelessly) ignorant and unskilled in the most vital and significant human responsibilities. In millions of homes women are wasting their time and energy, losing the joy of their motherhood (and too often their little ones), perplexed, harassed, over-burdened, because they are bungling, stumbling blindly, groping at their vocation. And those they love most dearly are paying the penalty, in less happy homes, less efficient lives. Hundreds of thousands of self-supporting young women every year are going into industrial or commercial work or school teaching, not because they prefer it, but because opportunities for acquiring the requisite skill are at hand, and conditions of work have been standardized. Hundreds of thousands of mothers with young children are seeking in vain for assistants of desirable personality and efficient training. For such workers there has been no adequate opportunity for training and no standardizing of working conditions. In all this, America is far behind both Germany and England.

What does mothercraft require in its practitioners? First, personality: love of children and sympathy with child-nature, responsibility, patience, thoroughness in the minute details day in and day out, self-control, good judgment, adaptability, the play spirit. Fundamental also are open-mindedness, spiritual vision, and the poise that results from a well-regulated physical régime and a firm apprehension of eternal verities.

Then knowledge: a sound foundation in the fundamental principles and vital facts of applied biology, psychology, sociology, ethics, economics, natural sciences, play, arts, as they relate to the home, the family, and childhood. Equally important is the scientific mind that knows how to approach new problems and receive new principles.

Then technique: the actual doing and practice of mothercraft. Knowledge is of no value until it is translated into efficient action. There must be little children to care for, tend, play with, educate.

What of fathercraft? Every child has two parents, equal in responsibility for his heredity and likewise for his rearing. Fathers could hardly be expected ordinarily to be versed in the intricacies of clothing, feeding, and bathing the baby. But why should not every man understand the principles of hygiene and foods as a matter of his general knowledge quite as much as for coöperation with the mother in the children’s régime? Why should he not with equal zest make a study of growth and development during childhood? Even more, why should he not be intimately acquainted with child psychology and the fundamental principles of child training and education, that he may understand his own children and coöperate sympathetically in their upbringing? Is there any valid reason why he should not be equally acquainted with the sociology of the home, the meaning and principles of eugenics, the psychology of harmony in home life?

There is no profession open to either men or women that offers such opportunities for personal culture, individual expression, technical skill, scientific research, social contribution and welfare, as mothercraft. Perhaps the very comprehensiveness of it and its humanness have presented a problem so complex that it has baffled the educators and delayed its admission to academic dignity.

Through the channels of child welfare, eugenics, and pediatrics, a keener sense of responsibility toward the child unborn is developing. Through the increasing knowledge of heredity, child psychology, and education, a clearer vision is appearing to young men and young women of what they themselves might have been, and of what they may yet create and develop by combining wisdom with their great love. Philanthropists are realizing the futility of simply relieving immediate suffering, crime, inefficiency, for generation after generation. They are looking to the elimination of the causes: ignorance of the rudiments of living, poor heredity, neglect in childhood, unsanitary, ugly, unspiritual living conditions. “There is no wealth but life,” we are realizing with Ruskin. Statesmen and legislators are beginning to see that the stability of society and the State demand that the organizing of homes, the founding of families, the spending of family incomes, shall not be intrusted to novices and unskilled workers. As indications of this, we have the recently established Children’s Bureau, and the Smith-Lever Bill with its appropriation for education that includes home-making.

In America, clubs, reading courses, and special correspondence for parents have been developed in the last quarter century by the International Congress of Mothers, Parent-Teachers’ Association, Home and School League, American Institute of Child Life. This is good and is helping many parents in meeting their perplexities, but as a national means of vocational training, its psychology and pedagogy is shortsighted and inefficient.

What banker would trust his ledgers to a youth just out of school, whose only special preparation for bookkeeping was a current reading course in business methods? What woman would permit a man to experiment on her garden if he was just beginning a correspondence course in agriculture? What business man wants to intrust his correspondence to a stenographer just out of a business course, even after months of such vocational training? All this is recognized as inefficient, wasteful, expensive in business; how much more so is it in the home, where precious human lives are the factors to be dealt with.

Slowly, but certainly, there is coming a new ideal in education. Children and young people are to be prepared for living. They are to know how to develop physical vitality and mental ability and spiritual power. They are to be prepared in spirit and intelligence, in skill and in science, in personality and technique for the responsibilities that most of them will assume, for the greatest responsibility any of them can assume—home-making and family rearing.