Household Gymnastics

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 14, 1902

Household Gymnastics

UNDER this heading the Literary Digest considers the question whether the exercises of housework, as that work is done in most American homes, constitute good gymnastics for the body. Physical exercise is essential to physical health, and it would seem that the work of caring for a house, if properly conducted, ought to furnish healthful exercise for the housewife; but according to the testimony here quoted, this work as performed in the average American home, is not conducive to health, but has quite the contrary effect. A writer in the American Kitchen Magazine says that housework would give good exercise if properly regulated; but that it is not so regulated. This authority says:—

“The writer has watched many women sweep, and he has rarely seen one who did not wield her broom continuously on one side of the body. The ambidextrous sweeper is uncommon. Examine a hundred brooms in daily use, and you will see that ninety-nine of them are worn obliquely across the bottom. The sweeper always holds her broom at the same angle, on the same side of the body. She stoops constantly in the same direction, repeats the same stroke, fatigues the same muscles, and brings pressure to bear upon the same vital organs. The result is lopsidedness. Few habitual sweepers have symmetrical bodies. One shoulder is almost always elevated above the other, besides being more noticeably padded with muscle. The figure gradually acquires a cant toward the side on which the broom is wielded.

“How about the hygiene of the broom? In spite of the utmost precaution,—and the average American woman does not take that precaution,—a broom will stir up a cloud of fine dust, dust that you can smell and taste, dust that defies all nature’s filtering arrangements, and penetrates to the remotest cells of the lungs. Even the patent carpet sweeper raises some dust. . . .

“The sweeper’s ‘weak back’ is simply a protest from the kidneys, too much strain and drag on those sensitive organs. There is a distinct transverse strain in the motion of sweeping, a sort of stretching, tearing pull, especially when the broom is habitually wielded on one side. This strain is bad for the kidneys; and the result is that most women who do a great deal of sweeping have chronically weak and aching backs.

“The heart is less directly affected by broom sweeping than are the lungs or the right kidneys. But most sweepers stoop too much forward, holding the head down; and the resultant compression of the chest walls confines the heart at a time when its action should be most free and unimpeded. And the heart, we know, is also indirectly affected by anything that interferes with the proper functioning of lungs and kidneys.”

Even worse than sweeping, the same writer says, is washing, as commonly practiced. Bending over a steaming tub, habitually compressing the chest, and straining breast and back muscles in an unnatural position, is not healthful exercise. Of this and other kinds of common housework he says further:—

“The ‘life’ of a washerwoman—her expectancy of service, that is—is noticeably brief. Unless she is an exceptionally strong and healthy woman, she will give out in from five to ten years. ‘Broken back’ is the common complaint. That means abused and diseased kidneys and the beginning of a constitutional breakdown. Patent-medicine dealers reap enormous profits from the pitiful endeavors of washerwomen to rid themselves of that terrible ache and weakness in the small of the back. Unquestionably, washing is not good gymnastics.

“Bad, too, are the constrained positions of floor scrubbing; the strainings and stretchings and tiptoeings of house cleaning and window washing; the removing and sifting of ashes; the cleaning of sooty stoves and stovepipes; the feverish toil over ironing boards, while the blood boils in an unnaturally high temperature, and the feet, legs, and back ache with long standing in one position.”

The writer concludes with some suggestions as to how such unfortunate physical effects may be avoided. He says:—

“There are, to be sure, some functions of housework that are physically beneficial, or at least harmless. Bread making, cooking, dish washing, bed making,—comparatively light exercises like these are unobjectionable. But the heavier household work, as generally conducted, is physically detrimental.

“It is not to be denied, on the other hand, that our wiser sisters of leisure choose their gymnastics with wisdom and good sense. The scientific results of every exercise are noted and understood, and physical play is regulated accordingly. Promotion of bodily symmetry and of vital function is the result sought and gained. If housework could be revolutionized or regulated in such a way as to have the same ends in view, it might possess some real gymnastic value. There is a chance for very effective reform in the manner of performing the heavier household tasks. The application of scientific principles of physical culture to these tasks, in order that they may be performed in the most healthful and hygienic manner, would be a reform of immense benefit to American women. It is with this end in view that we should seek enlightenment from the physical culturists, instead of ridiculing their practices. For who can deny that they have availed themselves of the right principles of physical culture? If only these same principles could be applied industrially, so that the two birds, physical development and household economy, might be brought to bag with one stone, what a happy consummation it would be!”