MAY CONTAIN NUTS
HOME
Home

Search Shorpy

SEARCH TIP: Click the tags above a photo to find more of same:
Mandatory field.

Search results -- 30 results per page

Social Hygiene: 1922
Washington, D.C., 1922. "Social Hygiene Society exhibit." The Women's Bureau photos in our two previous posts ... at an angle and some have some odd headgear. Is this a Social Hygiene exhibit or a House of Horrors? I like how the man outside on ... 
 
Posted by Dave - 09/13/2011 - 11:15pm -

Washington, D.C., 1922. "Social Hygiene Society exhibit." The Women's Bureau photos in our two previous posts were used in this exhibit. Which is, in case we haven't mentioned it, FREE -- so come in, won't you? View full size. Beware the Traffic CircleDangerous Places The "circles" are particularly dangerous. There are other dangerous places, however. Learn the facts about them inside. House of DetentionBathing is compulsory! Click to embiggen. That displayIs that a slide viewer, or some early form of TV? [See the comment below. - Dave] AV ClubNote the TV-ish opaque projector in the window display. Similar to the one seen here on Shorpy. This could happen to YOU!The appearance of the people inside is creeping me out big time! I'm guessing that the guard-like people on small pedestals are actually mannequins. The one on the left has an impossibly long neck and appears to be about to do something with an object that one should not be doing in full public view. The people seated look like they might be real. They also look like they are strapped in at an angle and some have some odd headgear. Is this a Social Hygiene exhibit or a House of Horrors? I like how the man outside on the far right appears to be beaming down from an episode of "Mad Men." Hygiene to Be Explained Washington Post, Jan 5, 1922 Hygiene To Be Explained Separate Hours for Men and Women at 1222 F Street. A social hygiene exhibit under the joint auspices of the District health department, United States public health service and the Social Hygiene Society of the District, will be held at 1222 F street northwest for one week, beginning Monday morning at 10 o'clock. From 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. daily the exhibit will be open to men only and from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., to women only. From 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. there will be mixed audiences. At the evening meetings motion pictures will be shown and there will be prominent speakers. Washington Post, Nov 12, 1922 Hygiene Exhibit to he Held Planned for Three Weeks, Beginning Wednesday. A free social hygiene exhibit under the auspices of the District health department will be opened next Wednesday at 512 Ninth street northwest, Dr. William C. Fowler, health officer said yesterday. It will be continue for three weeks, daily from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. Cooperating with the health department is the United States public health service and the Social Hygiene society of Washington. The exhibit will be held to show the importance of treatment for diseases and how they may be prevented. Motion pictures will be shown. EraserheadFor me, as I look at this image close-up, it reminds me of some sort of David Lynch nightmare. (The Gallery, D.C., Education, Schools, Natl Photo)
Bathing Is Compulsory: 1922
... "Women's Bureau." The House of Detention display at the Social Hygiene exhibit. National Photo glass negative. View full size. ... 
 
Posted by Dave - 11/02/2012 - 4:52am -

1922. Washington, D.C. "Women's Bureau." The House of Detention display at the Social Hygiene exhibit. National Photo glass negative. View full size. Segregation in the small printThis being Washington DC in the 1920s, there is, not surprisingly, racial segregation in their model prison. The center panel on the top depicts a "White Girls Bedroom" next to a photo of a "Colored Girls Dormitory." Don't mess with herThe head of the Women's Bureau was Lieutenant Mina van Winkle (1875-1932) who seems to have been a very formidable woman,a leading suffragette in New Jersey she became head of the Bureau in 1919. Among her once controversial ideas, such as not jailing prostitutes but instead treating them for 'social diseases' is this gem from 1925. "Friendless" "Clients are requested to notify police of any friendless, homeless or incorrigible boys and girls" So if you were a shy kid with no friends, the police would come get you? But at least you'd get your own bed, and wouldn't have to share, I guess. SegregationWe often forget how Southern Washington DC was- white girls get bedrooms and colored girls get dormitories and we are assured that the restrooms are segregated as well. Ohio Avenue NWThe Juvenile Detention Home seen here on Shorpy as it appeared in 1922. Located in the infamous "Hooker's Division" neighborhood south of Pennsylvania Avenue and just east of the White House, it was torn down along with every other building in the surrounding area to make way for development of the present day Federal Triangle. Segregation as HygieneOne of the "truths" in segregation was that even the dirtiest white man was cleaner than the cleanest black man. It served to bolster the superiority of whites over blacks. EmployeI have to love that one poster uses "employe", the old alternate spelling of "employee" without the double-e at the end. I worked for GM for many years and they steadfastly adhered to that spelling until the mid-late 1990s. People used to joke about some bean counter having figured out that they saved money by dropping the extra "e". [Other examples can be found here when you click "quotations." - tterrace] (The Gallery, D.C., Natl Photo)
Kitchen Nightmare: 1937
... the boonies where nobody ever drops by, nobody cares, no social checks and ballances, no Joneses around to whom one might need to keep ... So which one of them is Andy? You know, Opie's Dad. Hygiene did not come from the genes Some people forget that the concept of ... 
 
Posted by Dave - 06/01/2013 - 3:15pm -

June 1937. "Child of Earl Taylor in kitchen of their home near Black River Falls, Wisconsin." Photo by Russell Lee, Resettlement Administration. View full size. SpeculatingNobody knows what was really going on here but there are so many possibilities. After looking at Michael L's comment and photo, it seems the kids are all withdrawn, shy and very timid so they may be afraid of Dad. Or perhaps one parent had a mental or physical illness and the other parent was expected to do all the work alone, impossible for one individual with seven needy kids a year or two apart. There were no disposable diapers, baby wipes, cleaning wipes, convenience foods or Swiffers. Both parents are young, could have been a teen marriage and Dad appears to be indifferent and disinterested in any of them while Mom looks embarrassed and stands away. Clearly there is extreme poverty there but for whatever reason, keeping a neat, clean home and nine people contented was not possible. A family needs both a head (usually the father) and a heart (usually the mother) and together, both need to be strong enough to handle the needs of a family of nine. There were probably even more future babies to come but none of us know the real problems here. It may be a heartbreaking story but we can only hope it had a happy ending. Seeing this picture should make you stop feeling sorry for yourself and count your blessings, knowing things can always be a lot worse. In the South, we say"They're doing the best they can, bless their hearts." maybe, maybe notMaybe they are slackers, maybe not. Obviously, dyfunctionals and messies are not a new phenomenon. My personal take would be that the parents have other and larger problems besides being dirt-poor. Back then it could have been moonshine, today maybe it would be meth. The kid's bibs could need a wash, too. On second thought, please let me elaborate and add some other possible / probable problems: - Just being overwhelmed by adverse conditions. It might be the economy, after all. - Living way out in the boonies where nobody ever drops by, nobody cares, no social checks and ballances, no Joneses around to whom one might need to keep up with. - Or having lost all pride. - Any number of others. As I recallThere were several posts of the Taylor homestead. Most if not all of their children grew up and had families of their own. Probably without any government assistance. [Actually, many if not most of these people were Resettlement Administration clients. That's why their photos are in a government archive. - Dave] Nightmare is rightThere's poor and then there's poor. Needs a woman's touchI'm guessing that Mr. Earl Taylor may have been a widower. [Nope. - Dave] No excuse for this filth. I knew many very poor people when I was growing up in Europe, but that did not preclude their keeping a neat, clean house. Nightmare is Wrong.Just because you are poor doesn't mean you have to live like a filthy pig. The parents are slackers. So which one of them is Andy?You know, Opie's Dad. Hygiene did not come from the genesSome people forget that the concept of hygiene is not something that stems from spontaneous generation, it is taught until is ingrained into the culture. These parent’s parents –obviously as poor as them- grew up into the XIX century when the concept of hygiene just began to get hold and just in the most urban and educated areas. Education apart, isn't that obvious also that these folk didn't have all the modern appliances and cleaning products that today we take as granted and cheap? Or that caring for seven children –no pills back then- set the priorities in other orders? When all of the children are barefoot, how come people get disgusted or offended by untidiness or some dirt? Furthermore, think that unless you have royal blood (and to a certain degree), all your ancestors lived in worse conditions. Too busyThe Mrs probably had a busy week and got a little behind on the house cleaning. Slackers or notThis photo and the accompanying family scene certainly do reveal a nightmare of poverty during the Great Depression. The little boy doesn't look particularly dirty to me, especially considering the fact that he has no shoes. He apparently had just wet his pants (which certainly haven't had time to dry), but I know that a child as young as he might do that about 60 seconds after being changed. Consider the likelihood that there is no indoor plumbing or no running water. The kitchen doesn't look any more dirty than the kitchen we can see in Homeless Cooking, when you account for the fact that one uses diesel/gas and this one uses wood or coal which is a much dirtier heat source. And apparently this family has managed to hold out renting an actual building to live in at the time of this photo rather than live in a tent as pictured in the referenced second photo. Does that make the parents bigger or lesser slackers than those who live in tents? I know it's an American passtime to blame poor people for all their problems (and often for society's problems) but if you haven't walked in someone else's shoes and don't have any details of their circumstances other than their abject poverty during the Great Depression, please try to restrain yourself from condemning other folks. And I've seen pictures of filth from Europe before -- do I really have to provide links to prove that? Lastly a thought: Consider a wealthy family with inherited money of this period who don't work and who pay other people to do all their cooking, cleaning and child caring. Slackers, or not? What might have beenIf they could have cleaned up that oven. My mother always saidsoap and water are cheap, no excuse for filthy, that little infant standing in his own filth and pouring in more tugs at my heart. The mother must be overwhelmed to allow this condition, and to let it be photographed. RIP Dear Lady, assuming she has gone to her final reward. Not quite a thing of the pastI have witnessed similar scenes in rural Maine not too long ago. Poverty and neglect knows no age. Sometimes you just can't do it all.The place looks awful. But the little boy looks clean and well-fed, and he looks like he was loved and cared for. I have seen similar in the year 2013. Doing what they canA lot of judgment going on here on Shorpy, unfortunately. I agree the kitchen is awful - no argument there. But I did a little research on the family. Earl Taylor was a younger son of a farm family in the area (1910 census). By 1920, he was 22 and the only one left at home (1920 census). In 1930, his father had died, and his mother was the widowed head of household. Earl had also been married and widowed, and he lived on the farm with his mother and his three children, two sons and a daughter (Earl Jr., Albert, and Evalina). I believe they are the three oldest kids in the family photo Dave posted (1930 census). Earl apparently remarried in about 1921 to a woman named Edna (pictured), who was a widow with two sons (Howard and Garvey Simplot, the two on the far left, I'm guessing. He was 43 and she was 29 in 1940 (1940 census). Together, they had the two smallest boys in the photo, Ronald and Ersel, followed by another son, Garry, around 1938. The little boy in the kitchen photo would be Ersel, age 2 at that time. The census shows the father as a laborer for the WPA. Their home was valued at $200 and his earnings for 48 weeks of work in 1939 was $420. No conveniences... a large (blended) family, extreme poverty, and little hope -- pretty bleak picture. But I think they also probably had a lot of love going on. I hope they eventually did well. These poor people are my family.The little boy in the kitchen was my father. You have his name wrong, it was not Ersel, it was Cecil Taylor. Yes my fathers family was extremely poor and my grandmother was not the best house keeper in the world, but she was a very hard worker as was my grandfather. While they were strict with their children they were very good loving parents. Their circumstances did improve after the depression. When my grandfather Earl married my grandmother Edna he had four children, Earl Jr., Albert, Evelina & Duane. His first wife had died after giving birth to my Uncle Duane as she had a burst appendics that they thought was just after birthing pains, after this happened he sent the two smaller children to live with his wifes sister, this was before he had met my grandmother. My Grandma Edna's husband had been killed in a hunting accident and she had two boys, Howard & Larry Simplot. Together they had Ronald, Cecil, Gary, Jackie, Roger and twin boys Tommy & Terry (Terry died as a baby). They also cared for my Grandpa Earl's mother and took in other family members during these tough times. They had no indoor plumbing, no electricity & heated with wood at the time of this picture. Thank you for sharing the pictures, I don't think I had ever seen that particular picture of my dad. (The Gallery, Kids, Kitchens etc., Russell Lee)
Exhibit X: 1922
Washington, D.C., 1922. "Social Hygiene Society exhibit." A peek inside reveals the period-appropriate use of ... full size. The burning question What exactly is "Social Hygiene"? It has overtones of a group shower. [Speaking of ... 
 
Posted by Dave - 09/13/2011 - 11:18pm -

Washington, D.C., 1922. "Social Hygiene Society exhibit." A peek inside reveals the period-appropriate use of scary dolls and mannequins in a variety of cryptic tableaux. National Photo Company Collection glass negative. View full size. The burning questionWhat exactly is "Social Hygiene"? It has overtones of a group shower. [Speaking of burning. Social hygiene is how you avoid social diseases. - Dave] "Speaking of burning."That occurred to me. "For free distribution"I wonder how many people helped themselves to a nice glass paperweight. Euphem-topiaI love the way they tried to communicate important information while being extremely coy and delicate about it. Couldn't the common cold be called a "social disease"? I daresay their contemporaries must have been almost as befuddled as we are today about the message. I think my first experience with this was when I was 15, finding a 1961 National Geographic on a recycling pile. There was an ad in there for a pharmaceutical company, who boasted of working to find a cure for "the type of cancer most prevalent in women." Come on, was the word "breast" really that taboo? Apparently so. I guess it was around the same time (mid-'80s) that Oprah pretty much singlehandedly made it OK to talk about some of these things in public. At least, that's how I remember it. Come to think of it, I'm rather bemused at how the exhibits implied that bathing and kitchen sanitation have anything to do with reducing the spread of STDs. PioneerI think it was Betty Ford that brought substance abuse and breast cancer out into the open. Creepy, but just you waitCranking up for the Halloween show perhaps? Pretty good start I'd say. Feelthy!I'm always amazed how dirty everything looks in these old photos. For example, where the floor meets the baseboard, and all the woodwork in general. Is it really that dirty, or is this an issue with the photos? Is this the weirdest Shorpy pick ever?Let's say you were rummaging through a box of old photos in the attic at your grandmother's. You find this photo - labeled on the back, even. How in heaven or hell's name could you tell what was going on in the photo? Who are these matrons, sitting in an office with mannequins dressed as Great War soldiers in the windows next to them, with grown men staring in the windows, and in the far right of the photo, a bunch of baby dolls with strange masks over their heads? Oh, with potted palms and free literature, too? It's like a still from "Un Chien Andalou." For every ten shots of buildings on city corners, we get one image like this. It helps to remind us how fleeting are our fashions, our politics, and our concept of what is "normal". Thank you for both. Gotta love that progressive era"Social hygiene" was one of the reform movements within the larger progressive movement of the period. It basically aimed to end prostitution and venereal (at the time referred to as "social") diseases. Another progressive program from that period was eugenics to breed healthier, happier people. It was generally a pretty creepy period. (The Gallery, D.C., Education, Schools, Natl Photo)
To the Rescue: 1892
... Madam! Bare ankles and calves? I tremble for the moral hygiene of the Republic! Seriously, though, this woman's musculature seems exceptional to the fin de siècle social standards imposed on women, requiring them to be weak, zaftig, and ... 
 
Posted by Dave - 02/27/2016 - 10:02am -

Circa 1892. "Woman diving from pier." Albumen print from "J.S. Johnston's series of American stereoscopic views," 1889-1892. View full size. FormHer dive is a thing of beauty. Cool diveWhat a strong beautiful line in this woman's dive. Athletic and elegant at the same time. Pity she must wear a skirt as part of the bathing costume, though. Very good formThis is not this woman's first dive. She's been practicing. Egad, Madam!Bare ankles and calves? I tremble for the moral hygiene of the Republic! Seriously, though, this woman's musculature seems exceptional to the fin de siècle social standards imposed on women, requiring them to be weak, zaftig, and subject to "the vapors." Our subject has clearly been bootlegging some hours at the gym. How'd he or she do it?This photo must have been difficult to take with the cameras and emulsions of the day. Can anyone give us info on how it was done? [A mistaken notion. A fast shutter and fast emulsion. - Dave] Thanks, Dave. I learn a lot from your website, that's for sure, and enjoy doing it. Bathing costume of the futureFrom the brevity of her bathing costume, not just legs and feet, but arms, bare, I would have guessed this to be more like thirty years later! [The shuttlecock silhouette. - Dave] Nice technique!I am the photographer for my son's high school swim team. I am impressed with the photographer's reasonably clear shot of a diver. I didn't realize that fast enough lenses (i.e. large aperture) and film were available to get a shutter speed this high in that era. I know I have a tough time doing it nowadays. Still, I am indoors in much less light, though I am using a fast lens at f/1.8. It is hard to avoid too much noise for my taste. The lady has excellent diving form! [This was before film. The exposure was made on an emulsion-coated glass plate with a stereographic camera that captures two images simultaneously. - Dave] Best Laugh of My DayQuoting "Solo" below - Bare ankles and calves? I tremble for the moral hygiene of the Republic! I literally spat out my coffee. Thanks for the chuckle. Perfect!I give it a 10! Doesn't get much better than that. (The Gallery, Swimming)
The Healing Arts: 1922
Washington, D.C., 1922. "Social Hygiene exhibit. House of Detention, Women's Bureau. Clinic -- Mental and ... disposition of cases." That is, did they have a social disease and/or were they pregnant. One wonders what the "disposition" ... 
 
Posted by Dave - 09/13/2011 - 11:16pm -

Washington, D.C., 1922. "Social Hygiene exhibit. House of Detention, Women's Bureau. Clinic -- Mental and medical examinations are essential in order to make intelligent disposition of cases." National Photo glass negative. View full size. Can't help it; house of horrors!I am sure this was typical for the time period, but I think it would make a GREAT set for a horror movie. Even the stirrups have a sinister appearance. Yikes, where's the garlic and the holy water? I hope those spotsare on the picture, and not the sheets! CreepshowLooks like something out of a horror movie. Even NowI'm gonna guess that the great majority of inmates did not have even basic health care outside the Jailhouse. At least the Department of Corrections Doctor was a step in the right direction. Amazing that to this day some prisoners are getting better care than their families on the outside. Imaginewhat went on in this room -- note the stirrups on the table; the stethoscope on the table; the lidded disposal can. Medical examinations (of the women in detention) were "essential in order to make intelligent disposition of cases." That is, did they have a social disease and/or were they pregnant. One wonders what the "disposition" might have been. Eugenics and StirrupsInvoluntary sterilizations and abortions were once legally sanctioned means to toward the "intelligent disposition of cases." Considering that the Social Hygiene movement quite openly included the elimination of "racial degeneration" and "genetic defectives" among its progressive aims, there were probably quite a few unsavory operations carried out in this room. Wonder if there were drains in the floor? One for Ghost Hunters?If this photo were taken out of context, and the staining was not seen as affecting the photo itself, this could be a candidate for ghostly spirit heads imprinted on the wall looking at their possible point of departure from this mortal coil. (The Gallery, D.C., Medicine, Natl Photo)
Culinary Arts: 1922
Washington, D.C., 1922. "Social Hygiene exhibit. House of Detention -- Women's Bureau. All dishes are ... 
 
Posted by Dave - 09/13/2011 - 11:16pm -

Washington, D.C., 1922. "Social Hygiene exhibit. House of Detention -- Women's Bureau. All dishes are sterilized in order to guard against infection." Nameplate on the equipment: FEARLESS DISHWASHER. National Photo. View full size. I think that actuallyThis is the test kitchen for school cafeterias everywhere. At least the ones from my childhood. Salisbury steak, anyone? Skinned-over banana pudding? I'm not a cookWhat is it that the seated lady is making? Can anyone tellWhat is the woman preparing? Looks like pencil shavings. Yum. Yes, FearlessI was ready to chime in with "Certainly that's a Peerless Dishwasher" but No, a quick Google shows the Fearless Dishwasher Co. was in Rochester N.Y. What the?What the heck is that lady dealing with at the table? I don't recognize that at all. She has cut upone of the mops at lower left. (The Gallery, D.C., Kitchens etc., Natl Photo)
Syndicate content  Shorpy.com is a vintage photography site featuring thousands of high-definition images. The site is named after Shorpy Higginbotham, a teenage coal miner who lived 100 years ago. Contact us | Privacy policy | Accessibility Statement | Site © 2024 Shorpy Inc.