A 1920s Guide to Bad Parenting: Would You Have Been Found Guilty or Innocent? (PHOTOS)Meredith Carroll
There are few things I enjoy more than anything vintage related to parenting. Advice, gear, diaper-changing systems — they all make me and my willingness to serve ice cream at 10am and my passionate love for disposable diapers feel so superior, or at least so much less inferior.
In the 1920s, the Kansas State Board of Health, Division of Child Hygiene released a series of guidelines (warnings? lists? rules?) about how to keep babies healthy and safe.
After perusing the guidelines (warnings? lists? rules?), I figure I would have been a C+ parent at best, circa 1920. Which means I’d be faring better than the C- I’d probably get today, so there’s that.
Take a look and see how your kids would have fared with you in charge nearly a century ago:
Baby Will be Unhappy and Cross if He . . . 1 of 7. . . has me for a mother — that would be me, who is guilty of 11 of the 12 listed offenses.
Baby Will be Well and Happy if He . . . 2 of 7. . . has a mother other than me.
A bath every day? Ha! Good luck with that.
Bathing the Baby 3 of 7Again: Every day?
The Cost of Feeding 4 of 7It had me until the death part, which feels a tad dramatic.
Milk Bottles 5 of 7Your baby will probably be well.
Unless your baby is 1 in 10. Then your baby will probably die, apparently.
Fresh Air for the Babies 6 of 7Chicken coops: Good.
Babies’ Sore Eyes is a Dangerous Disease 7 of 7How, pray tell, do babies tell you they have sore eyes?
Charades? Email? Sign language?
Top photo credit: iStock
All other images used with permission from Retronaut.co