What do you think?
Rate this book
Eating for Victory: Food Rationing and the Politics of Domesticity
Victory gardens, ration books.
While men fought overseas, women fought the war at home, by going to work
and, more subtly, by feeding their families. Mandatory food rationing
during World War II challenged, for the first time, the image of the United
States as a land of plenty and collapsed the boundaries between women's
public and private lives by declaring home production and consumption
to be political activities.
In this fascinating cultural
history, Amy Bentley examines the food-related propaganda surrounding
rationing. She also explores the dual message purveyed by government and
the media that while mandatory rationing was necessary (enabling enough
food to be sent to the U.S. military and Allies overseas), women, black
and white, were also "required" to provide their families with nutritious
food.
Eating for Victory
explores the role of the Wartime Homemaker (media counterpart to the more
familiar Rosie the Riveter) as a pivotal component not only of World War
II but of the development of the United States into a superpower.
272 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1998
101 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 20, 2017
Oh my. Another esoteric book on food politics and the gender of food here in America. It exceeded my expectations and I couldn't stop reading it despite other Goodreads' readers describing it as "dry." I thought it was exceptionally well done. The author is a scholar who has published on other areas of food. This one complements the other books I've read recently on food politics.
The book is a history of WWII food rationing and the cultural connections between black and white American women, and the prescriptive gendered associations between meat/men and women/sugar. There are also sections on victory gardens and canning, and gender, race, and ordered meals.
The most fascinating portion of the book for me was on rationing of red meat and sugar. Bentley does a fine job of exploring how for millennia, red meat has been the consummate symbol of male virility/strength, and that social conditioning has put men and red meat together in a tight relationship. In a similar fashion, women have been conditioned to prefer sugar--and in varied circumstances and periods of abundance and want, through the ages often choose sugar to make up for calories that men consume in meat. I've always known it wasn't a feminine thing to sit down across from your date and order a medium rare porterhouse steak. But I didn't really ever think about why this came to be.
During WWII, with rationing, the OWI pulled out all the stops to maintain the status quo, despite the fact that many things were changing---married women with children were working, for example. Creating propaganda that illustrated strict gender roles surrounding food was supposed to provide stability, peace, and reassurance that America was just the way it had always been, and the government felt (probably correctly) that disrupting the status quo would create disunity instead of harmony for the multitude of programs they forced on civilians.
With red meat, 60% of America's USDA choice red meat was going overseas. So when that was rationed, propaganda would show the biggest portion sizes going to the father and older boys of the family. Even written campaigns or magazine/newspaper ads would explain that the males "needed" the meat more. No research had been done yet showing that women and females and young children needed protein too. The mother would accept a smaller portion, or less desirable meat, such as neck or giblets, if it was a chicken, because of prescriptive notions. Women were encouraged to cook with soybeans, eggs, peanut butter, and other sources of protein such as liver, kidneys, and other organ meats like brains, but it was only up to the woman to convince her husband to eat them. Which overall this campaign wasn't successful. The government found that Americans needed meat to maintain a positive psyche about the war and their place in it, so they couldn't slight them too much in the meat department. If anyone was to be slighted, everyone understood it would be the women.
Its interesting that even today, these roles totally play out, as in family dinners. If I have 20-30 family members over for a barbecue, I'm always thinking...will there be enough meat for the men? I know they will go back 2-3 times or more for extra meat, but do the women do that? It's more likely that women will be going back for salads or desserts if they're still hungry, even myself, and I seriously love a good steak. I realized that I hadn't thought about why---and while I think the men and women in my family would initially yell out that that's what they prefer, I came to believe through reading this book that it's not preference as much as social conditioning over a very, very long period of time. Even our nursery rhymes from ages ago associate males with meat and women with sugar....."What are little boys made of? Snips and snails and puppy dog's tails...what are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice..."
With sugar, the rations bothered women more because they couldn't bake as much. Ironically, commercial bakeries received a lions share of sugar (most of which were run by men) and most women didn't have enough rationed to them to bake the desserts and cookies they usually did, especially around holidays or birthdays. They did have the option of buying cake mixes, or buying pre-made pies and goodies from bakeries, but many women resented being forced to do this to enjoy sweets. The OPA (office of price administration) received many angry letters from housewives about this discrimination, but they never came up with any logical explanations. Additionally, with the victory garden campaign, women were encouraged to can, but there was often not enough sugar to do so---so the mixed message was frustrating to women.
I enjoyed the way Bentley took apart WWII artwork such as Norman Rockwell's four iconic pictures called "4 Freedoms." In Freedom from Want, the iconic ordered Thanksgiving meal, Bentley also shows how mealtimes, especially holiday meals, are not so much for sociality and building family ties as to confirm gender roles within the family and within the larger society. Such meals also show men and women's relationship to food. (those with Euro-American heritage) The man being at the head of the table shows men as presiders and presenters within a family---and men cutting the turkey or cutting the roast---show men's limited yet celebrated role. When the turkey gets cut, everyone gathers around and gives attention!! But the women's food---salads, sweets, etc--the stuff with sugar----are seen as mundane, and despite sometimes taking days of preparation, there is no attention or celebration given to the woman. Women (as shown in the picture) serve and organize, everything behind the scenes.
On a different note, I had no idea America provided so much food to so many people besides US Soldiers. That farmers upped their meat production by 50% was incredible to me. Soldiers received about 4.300 calories a day, and meat was typically served 3 meals a day. The types of meals they ate while at war were described in great detail, and not surprisingly, upon returning home no one ate like that again for the rest of their life.
So interesting and fascinating.
The book is a history of WWII food rationing and the cultural connections between black and white American women, and the prescriptive gendered associations between meat/men and women/sugar. There are also sections on victory gardens and canning, and gender, race, and ordered meals.
The most fascinating portion of the book for me was on rationing of red meat and sugar. Bentley does a fine job of exploring how for millennia, red meat has been the consummate symbol of male virility/strength, and that social conditioning has put men and red meat together in a tight relationship. In a similar fashion, women have been conditioned to prefer sugar--and in varied circumstances and periods of abundance and want, through the ages often choose sugar to make up for calories that men consume in meat. I've always known it wasn't a feminine thing to sit down across from your date and order a medium rare porterhouse steak. But I didn't really ever think about why this came to be.
During WWII, with rationing, the OWI pulled out all the stops to maintain the status quo, despite the fact that many things were changing---married women with children were working, for example. Creating propaganda that illustrated strict gender roles surrounding food was supposed to provide stability, peace, and reassurance that America was just the way it had always been, and the government felt (probably correctly) that disrupting the status quo would create disunity instead of harmony for the multitude of programs they forced on civilians.
With red meat, 60% of America's USDA choice red meat was going overseas. So when that was rationed, propaganda would show the biggest portion sizes going to the father and older boys of the family. Even written campaigns or magazine/newspaper ads would explain that the males "needed" the meat more. No research had been done yet showing that women and females and young children needed protein too. The mother would accept a smaller portion, or less desirable meat, such as neck or giblets, if it was a chicken, because of prescriptive notions. Women were encouraged to cook with soybeans, eggs, peanut butter, and other sources of protein such as liver, kidneys, and other organ meats like brains, but it was only up to the woman to convince her husband to eat them. Which overall this campaign wasn't successful. The government found that Americans needed meat to maintain a positive psyche about the war and their place in it, so they couldn't slight them too much in the meat department. If anyone was to be slighted, everyone understood it would be the women.
Its interesting that even today, these roles totally play out, as in family dinners. If I have 20-30 family members over for a barbecue, I'm always thinking...will there be enough meat for the men? I know they will go back 2-3 times or more for extra meat, but do the women do that? It's more likely that women will be going back for salads or desserts if they're still hungry, even myself, and I seriously love a good steak. I realized that I hadn't thought about why---and while I think the men and women in my family would initially yell out that that's what they prefer, I came to believe through reading this book that it's not preference as much as social conditioning over a very, very long period of time. Even our nursery rhymes from ages ago associate males with meat and women with sugar....."What are little boys made of? Snips and snails and puppy dog's tails...what are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice..."
With sugar, the rations bothered women more because they couldn't bake as much. Ironically, commercial bakeries received a lions share of sugar (most of which were run by men) and most women didn't have enough rationed to them to bake the desserts and cookies they usually did, especially around holidays or birthdays. They did have the option of buying cake mixes, or buying pre-made pies and goodies from bakeries, but many women resented being forced to do this to enjoy sweets. The OPA (office of price administration) received many angry letters from housewives about this discrimination, but they never came up with any logical explanations. Additionally, with the victory garden campaign, women were encouraged to can, but there was often not enough sugar to do so---so the mixed message was frustrating to women.
I enjoyed the way Bentley took apart WWII artwork such as Norman Rockwell's four iconic pictures called "4 Freedoms." In Freedom from Want, the iconic ordered Thanksgiving meal, Bentley also shows how mealtimes, especially holiday meals, are not so much for sociality and building family ties as to confirm gender roles within the family and within the larger society. Such meals also show men and women's relationship to food. (those with Euro-American heritage) The man being at the head of the table shows men as presiders and presenters within a family---and men cutting the turkey or cutting the roast---show men's limited yet celebrated role. When the turkey gets cut, everyone gathers around and gives attention!! But the women's food---salads, sweets, etc--the stuff with sugar----are seen as mundane, and despite sometimes taking days of preparation, there is no attention or celebration given to the woman. Women (as shown in the picture) serve and organize, everything behind the scenes.
On a different note, I had no idea America provided so much food to so many people besides US Soldiers. That farmers upped their meat production by 50% was incredible to me. Soldiers received about 4.300 calories a day, and meat was typically served 3 meals a day. The types of meals they ate while at war were described in great detail, and not surprisingly, upon returning home no one ate like that again for the rest of their life.
So interesting and fascinating.
July 16, 2018
Excellent, thoroughly researched, and insightful study of food, war, and the complex politics of rationing.
August 24, 2007
Another cheapo book from the used book store down the street.
This book is awesome for anyone who's interested in a) 20th century American history, b) American women's history, or c) food politics. It has many excellent pictures of Meat Propaganda.
The only downside (for you all, as potential readers) is that it is intended as a scholarly work -- it would be great in a sociology or public health class -- so it can get kind of dry to read straight through. I enjoy that shit, though.
This book is awesome for anyone who's interested in a) 20th century American history, b) American women's history, or c) food politics. It has many excellent pictures of Meat Propaganda.
The only downside (for you all, as potential readers) is that it is intended as a scholarly work -- it would be great in a sociology or public health class -- so it can get kind of dry to read straight through. I enjoy that shit, though.
March 18, 2008
Having gotten interested in Victory Gardens, I found this research into WWII food politics full of new ideas. It mostly focused on food rationing, which is interesting though I didn't have the time to go into it in much depth, and it drew out the gendered propaganda and the class differences in how the domestic "front" was approached.
August 28, 2007
The history it provided was very interesting, but I would not have read it if I didn't have to.
October 7, 2008
This was actually very interesting and an easy read. I thought she stretched her research to match her thesis on some points but overall I enjoyed it and found it very informative.
March 26, 2010
Fabulous book...explores the cultural resonance of WWII rationing programs and its implications for women's history.
January 9, 2017
(3.5 stars) Informative. Plenty of interesting information, but tends towards repetition and dryness. Took ages to get through.
Want to read
May 9, 2007She's also writing a book on the history of baby food
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews