Popular Culture Review Vol. 13, No. 1, January 2002 | Page 15

Forever Lunching

11

the WI continued these courses and added some of longer duration. In 1936-37,
thirty-five one-month ‘'schools in Home Economics” were held across the province,
with 1,038 women in attendance. In 1936, when it became clear that many
homemakers found it impossible to attend classes on a continuous basis for several
weeks, special five-day and three-day versions of the courses were created.'^ In
1952, the annual report boasted that 551 short courses, most in a one-week format,
had been offered and 14,498 women had attended.‘^Obviously, the opportunities
for formal instruction in food preparation and studies in nutrition were very popular
indeed.
Historians such as Robert Stamp, exploring domestic science education
for women, have interpreted this phenomenon as evidence of a scheme to ‘"teach
women their God-given place” in society.'* Thus, education that centred on food
has been seen as a form of social control, of limiting the career options of young
women by channeling them into socially prescribed gender roles. As Margaret
Kechnie has recently shown, attention to the pre-1920 records left by government
officials and even by WI leadership confirms that this was indeed the agenda that
many of the elite were seeking to accomplish.'^ However, Ruby Heap provided a
different approach to the question when she considered the experiences of the
women who worked as educators in the field of domestic science. She argued that
the academic disciplines of nutrition and dietetics were sites where some women
made very successful careers for themselves within the university as institution
builders, administrators, or dietetic professionals.-^ Clearly then, these instructors
were more than mere pawns of some government scheme of social regulation.
Not only was the field of domestic science potentially empowering for
the instructors o f courses, but the women who took up these educational
opportunities placed a great deal of value on what they were doing. The records we
have which represent the point of view of members taking these governmentsponsored courses, whether written sources or those collected through oral history,
support this view. Historian Karen Dubinsky has recently reminded us that feminist
researchers need to beware of falling into what she called ""the pit of feminist
arrogance” assuming for example, that women in certain kinds of organisations
were “obviously” marginalised.^' When exploring groups like the WI, feminist
researchers need to beware of falling into a similar trap by prematurely concluding
that if the women were studying topics related to home economics, then they were
being limited, stifled, and controlled.
When women recounted their experiences in WI courses, they reported
opportunities for sociability with other students, skill development in practical
areas from which they could make immediate application, creative outlets, and
certification that validated the experience. One case in point is Ivy White, a young
woman from Northern Ontario, w ho completed two years of course work through