In the autumn of 1945 a number of farm women arrived – unannounced – at the Department of Agriculture in The Hague. They had come to make clear the extent to which they – as housewives on Dutch farms – were interested in, and had a stake in, the plans relating to the reconstruction of the farmhouses that had been destroyed.
This is how, in 1946, an employee of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Supply described a protest action by farm women who were keen to play a role in the reconstruction of farmhouses which were destroyed during the Second World War.1 A handful of individual women were behind this protest action, which was labelled spontaneous and amateurish. Whether the Ministry advised the women to work on a larger scale and adopt a more considered approach or whether their visit to the Ministry was part of a bigger plan that was already in place, is unclear. Whichever is true, women’s activities in relation to the reconstruction of farmhouses were characterised by large-scale organisation and well-considered arguments. Ultimately, their actions contributed to the modernisation and rationalisation of farmhouses.
In this chapter I describe the demands that farm women made with regard to the reconstruction of farmhouses, analyse and contextualise the origins of these demands, and explain what influence the women actually had on the
1 Destruction and Reconstruction
During the Second World War approximately 9,000 farmhouses in the Netherlands were totally destroyed. Only a few hours before the German invasion in May 1940, a Dutch army unit burned down some one hundred farmhouses so that their own defence would not be hindered and the enemy could not hide behind or in the buildings. Another few hundred farmhouses were ruined during the actual invasion. However, most of the farmhouses, about 8,500, were lost in the context of the liberation in 1944 and 1945, when fierce battles took place on Dutch territory, and parts of the land were flooded as a defence tactic. In all parts of the country, destruction took place, but especially the southern and the eastern parts of the Netherlands suffered badly; 9,000 farmhouses were completely destroyed, 40,000 were damaged. In relation to the total number of about 192,000 farms in that period, these numbers accounted for 4 per cent and 17 per cent of the total, respectively. However, these numbers give a somewhat skewed impression due to the geographically unequal distribution of the destruction.
In order to guarantee the food supply for the country, the ruined farms had to be rebuilt as soon as possible. To this end, the Dutch government set up the Agency for the Reconstruction of Farmhouses (Bureau Wederopbouw Boerderijen) as early as July 1940. This agency was given the task of organising and coordinating the reconstruction, designing strict guidelines for this process and making sure the guidelines were followed. After 1945 the agency was also responsible for all those farms that had been destroyed during the last year of the war. All destroyed farms were reconstructed individually – rather than through serial construction – in a process which involved more than six hundred architects from all regions in the Netherlands.
Besides this government institution, other actors were also involved in the reconstruction. These included individual local architects; the Institute of Dutch Architects; local planning authorities responsible for the aesthetic
As the destroyed farmhouses were reconstructed individually, farming families could influence the reconstruction of the individual farmhouses. For every new farmhouse, an individual building plan was made by – in most cases – a local architect, who was free to develop the plan together with the farming families concerned but who also had to follow the guidelines of the Agency for the Reconstruction of Farmhouses. These guidelines stated that the new buildings had to be cheap, that they had to be fireproof and hygienic, and that they had to allow for efficient working processes. The individual farmers had to give their permission and sign the plans before the reconstruction could start.
In order to provide a profound analysis of the reconstruction of the farmhouses and an understanding of its complexity and dynamics, a research approach is needed that includes all the different actors, their ideas and demands, their motivations, the power relations in which they were embedded, and their negotiations among each other.3 The focus on the role of farm women in this chapter contributes to a deeper understanding of these dynamics and the complexity of the reconstruction, both of which were determined
2 The Two Functions of Farmhouses
The conflict about modernisation and tradition was strongly connected with the functions of farmhouses during the period under consideration. At the time, farmhouses had two functions. On the one hand, they were agricultural buildings: objects for daily use which had to foster and guarantee the (economic) well-being of the farming families and which had to contribute to the modernisation of Dutch agriculture on a micro and macro level. On the other hand, the buildings were objects with an explicit symbolic function. As such, they represented certain traditions, values and identities, and had to contribute to the formation of a national community and the strengthening of a national identity.
2.1 Traditional Reconstruction
Despite initial optimism about the “New Netherlands” after the Second World War, representatives of the political and intellectual elite, proponents of the cultural heritage protection movement and some prominent architects began to voice cultural pessimism. They had concerns about possible negative effects of the modernisation processes, people’s moral decadence, and a lack of national cohesion. In their eyes, the promotion of rural traditions could create a new sense of national cohesion and national belonging and a new moral order in the post-war society. The idea was that a national “mental reconstruction” was to be realised alongside the material reconstruction. A traditional, regionally typical reconstruction of farmhouses (using traditional, regionally typical exterior forms and floor plans and traditional materials for the exterior) could both symbolise and generate national unity (in this, the notion of “unity through variety” was key), cohesion and morality. Furthermore, it was hoped that a traditional reconstruction would counteract the “creeping” loss of “traditional” rural culture in the wake of modernisation. This “creeping” loss” was considered a much more serious challenge than the loss of the farms caused by the war.4
2.2
At first, the advocates of traditional reconstruction and those whose primary concern was modernisation tried to come to compromises. The traditional exteriors were indeed compatible with the modern interiors the “modernisers,” who mainly came from the organised agricultural sector, requested. However, in the late 1940s, these “modernisers” introduced entirely new forms of farmhouses (modular systems), with the aim of making farm buildings cheaper, more hygienic, more fire-safe and more efficient. They hoped that this would lead to an increase in professionalism and productivity, and that it would thus facilitate economic progress on both the micro and macro level. In their view, particularly the living and working conditions of small farmers had to be improved. The destruction of the farms was considered an opportunity in that sense – even though the financing of the reconstruction was so complex that it became a challenge in itself.5
In the end, most of the reconstructed farmhouses got a modern interior enclosed by a traditional design; however, traditional elements were increasingly abandoned – and farming families generally supported this development. The destructions during the Second World War and the daily experiences in temporary shelters after the destruction made farming families aware of the central role the farmhouses played in their lives and work and motivated them to request innovation. However, this was certainly not a new topic. The agricultural sector, including associations for farmers and farm women, had already engaged in promoting and realising the urgently needed modernisation of farmhouses before the war.
3 Women’s Study Committees
Immediately after the Second World War, around fifty thousand farm women were members of various rural women’s federations. These federations had been founded in the 1920s and 1930s6 and had worked to improve living
1. Determination of the existing type of dwelling. 2. Identification of any deficiencies or shortcomings. 3. Determination of the most practical design for the living quarters. 4. The number of rooms and their position in relation to each other. 5. Open-plan kitchen or separate kitchen and living room. 6. Position of kitchen, cellar, washing area and other storage areas (for fuel, vegetables, potatoes) in relation to each other and the facilities present. 7. Link between living quarters and working area. 8. Joinery used for windows, doors, skirting boards, corners, etc. 9. What improvements and simplifications are desirable in the light of an anticipated shortage of domestic help, also in the future?10
Two points stand out that are characteristic of the contribution made by women to the reconstruction of farmhouses. The first relates to the gender-specific appropriation of space that resulted from the Centre’s focus on the living quarters of the farmhouse and, consequently, its neglect of the working area. The living quarters were regarded as the woman’s domain and the working area as that of the man. Research has shown, however, that this strict gender-related segregation between the household and the farm tended to be much more of an ideal and did not reflect the day-to-day social reality of rural women.11 Secondly, what was expected was an analysis of the situation
4 The Gender-Specific Appropriation of Space
The stereotypical, gender-specific appropriation of space forms part of the views propagated by farm household management schools and associations. The first household management course for farm women and farmers’ daughters was offered in 1909. From 1913 onwards, farm household management teachers were trained to educate rural women, and farm household management schools were founded. These institutions trained young women – usually over a two-year period – to prepare them for their future role as a mother, housewife and farm woman. Adult women were able to follow abridged courses covering similar subject matter.12 The education offered also dealt with farming, although it was not the intention for the students to become a “second farmer” in the household, alongside their (future) husbands. A clear – and largely ideal – separation was maintained between the woman’s and the man’s sphere of work, as historian Margreet van der Burg has demonstrated in her study on the education of rural women.13 The content of the education was based on the bourgeois ideal that women should deal first and foremost with the family, the household and the agricultural community – an ideal that was very favourably received in farming circles, particularly amongst landowners and farmers with large farms. In their view, the farm woman’s role as housewife and mother had a positive impact on the well-being of the farming family and, consequently, on the well-being of the rural community as a whole. Women were considered to have natural virtues and morals and were expected to pass these on to their children. They could only do so, however, if they led a “civilised” life and had duties in keeping with this. These certainly did not include
Whereas farm household management education trained women to enter the “female” work domain, agricultural education for men focused on the farm, which was considered to be the “male” domain. This resulted in a gender-related segregation that prevented people – and particularly, men – from seeing the farm as a single entity whose two constituent elements, the living quarters and working area, were inextricably linked by mutually dependent and overlapping fields of work.16 These two types of vocational training relating to the farm remained strictly separated into the 1960s. In accordance with the curriculum drawn up for farm household management education, the activities of rural women’s associations also emphasised the role of the woman as a mother and housewife and, therefore, predominantly focused on the tasks carried out in the living quarters.
5 Demands Relating to Reconstruction
The data collected by the provincial study committees through surveys and interviews contained extremely detailed information on the living quarters of the farmhouses to be reconstructed.17 A rather diverse wish list had emerged, as views differed from one region to another, but there was agreement on numerous basic issues.18 These included standards relating to the number and size of the rooms in the living quarters, which were discussed with the aforementioned reconstruction advisory committees.19 The standards regarding
However, other issues that the women had identified, including the urgent need to avoid windows with glazing bars (as found in traditional farmhouses) because they made farmhouses too dark and the windows difficult to keep clean, were not included in the guidelines.21 For that reason, in 1946, A.C. Wiersma-Risselada, who held administrative functions both within the Centre and within the Dutch Federation of Rural Women and who was an enthusiastic supporter of involving women in the reconstruction, noted that she was unhappy about the cooperation with the advisory committees of the Agency for the Reconstruction of Farmhouses. In her view, the committees were primarily focused on the working area, the farmer’s domain, and did not pay enough attention to the living quarters (Figure 5.1).22
Caricature to encourage women to make their voices heard on the subject of the reconstruction, 1946
source: a. c. wiersma-risselada, het aandeel der vrouw bij de wederopbouwboerderijen (den haag: nederlandse bond van plattelandsvrouwen, 1946), 13
In 1946 and 1949, two booklets were published containing detailed summaries of women’s demands relating to the reconstruction, as collected by the study committees: Het aandeel der vrouw bij de wederopbouwboerderijen (Women’s part in the reconstruction of farmhouses) and De boerin en haar huis (The farm woman and her home).24 The first of these was published by the Dutch Federation of Rural Women and reported on the study committees’ initial findings. These were presented in further detail in the second booklet, published by the Centre in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Supply. The publications were mainly intended for farm women whose farmhouses had been destroyed, as well as architects and contractors, and served as a guide during the individual approach to the reconstruction. Above all, the reconstruction of a farm had to result in living quarters that were efficiently laid out; moreover, the reconstructed building needed to promote hygiene and morality. Both publications opted for a form of argumentation and presentation that compared the old and new farmhouses. Here, the emphasis was placed on the shortcomings of the old farmhouses: “With regard to the layout of the living quarters, existing good forms should be perfected, deficiencies remedied and shortcomings that have arisen over time in existing dwellings due to changing living habits addressed.”25
In principle, the Housing Act (“Woningwet,” adopted in 1901 and amended in 1921 and 1931) was already applicable to dwellings before the war.26 This Act
The following were regarded as inadequate: “a. the number of sleeping areas, the washing and bathing facilities. b. the light and ventilation levels. c. the water supply throughout the house. d. waste disposal. e. the number of fitted cabinets for clothes, kitchen utensils and work equipment. f. the partitioning of the loft between the living quarters and working area.”29
In the second edition of De boerin en haar huis, published in 1956, these arguments were also supported by photographs in which the old situation and the new, improved situation were placed side by side (Figures 5.2a and b).30
Illustrations of the old situation and the new, desirable situation in farmhouses
source: centrale van boerinnen en andere plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/ministerie van landbouw, visserij en voedselvoorziening, de boerin en haar huis (= landbouw 10) (’s-gravenhage: staatsdrukkerij- en uitgeverijbedrijf, 1956), 51, 56
The reference to “deficiencies and shortcomings” from the past was based on knowledge that women had acquired from their experience of carrying out everyday housework in the living quarters of their farmhouses.31 Such knowledge appeared to be an insufficient argument on its own, however. Indeed, the influence and expertise of farm household management teachers were cited to substantiate the demands being made by farm women. Women’s demands relating to the reconstruction were being cultivated “thanks to the information communicated through farm household management education and associations,” which, to a large extent, supplemented or broke the cycle of knowledge
For example, a supply of water for mopping and washing on the first floor would save 43 hours per year, based on 10 buckets per week, each containing 10 kg of water, being carried over a distance of 5 metres [which was the distance that would have to be covered if the buckets had to be carried upstairs, as was the case in the old farmhouses]. The same applies to drainage on the first floor. If the cellar door does not open into the kitchen and you have to walk 2½ m back and forth to the cellar with an estimated frequency of ten times per day, this equates to 50 m per day. Two doors also have to be opened each time. The distance covered can be limited by ensuring that the cellar door opens into the kitchen.33
To cite another example, it was specified that installing central heating would save an estimated 3,750 working minutes (62.5 working hours) per year, as the farm women would no longer need to keep stoves burning.34
Calculations such as these added an analytical dimension to the knowledge that women had acquired through experience.
6 The Rationalisation of the Household
As was the case in other countries, since the beginning of the 1920s there was a lot of interest in the topic of the rational household in the Netherlands. This interest began with the publications of the American home economist Christine Frederick, who advocated applying insights from business economics to the household; in Frederick’s view, the housewife should function as a manager and work in accordance with an efficient work schedule.35 In 1928, a Dutch translation of Frederick’s 1915 book Household Engineering: Scientific Management in the Home was published under the title De denkende huisvrouw.
Rationalisation also meant paying attention to how the kitchen was equipped. Based on the concept of “efficiency,” Frederick had designed a kitchen that was small, orderly and practical, to allow the housewife to carry out her chores in a logical order and without too much toing and froing, bending and stretching.39 In Germany, this concept was emulated in 1926 in the famous kitchen design of architect Margarete Schütte-Lihotsky, the Frankfurter Küche. In the Netherlands, following experiments in various locations and using various methods, a rational kitchen was designed that the company Bruynzeel put into series production in 1938.40 The design took the housewife’s needs into account, emphasising efficiency, hygiene and comfort. Its basic elements were a worktop with two cupboards underneath and a sink in the middle. There was often a pull-out chopping board at the top of the right-hand cupboard. The sink and worktop were made of artificial stone and under the sink there was
The same was also true of the farmhouses to be reconstructed. Arguments in favour of the working kitchen and the open-plan kitchen had been collected by the study committees. The choice ultimately made “will depend … on what is customary in a particular region, the size of the dwelling and the financial means of the future residents,” Wiersma-Risselada announced in the booklet Het aandeel der vrouw bij de wederopbouwboerderijen. She also proposed a third version: a living room with an adjacent kitchen area that could be sealed off by means of a sliding door or curtain.42 All three of these options were actually created during the reconstruction, with the first two being the most common.43 With regard to the equipping of kitchens, we can assume that the original “Bruynzeel kitchen” was by no means applied in all cases, but that the kitchens in the reconstructed farmhouses were, nevertheless, equipped in accordance with the same principles of efficiency, hygiene and comfort. This was recommended in De boerin en haar huis, which included precise details relating to the worktop and sink, amongst other things. These had to be seventy-five to eighty-five centimetres in height, and the worktop needed to be at least two hundred centimetres long and the sink sixty centimetres long, with a distance of fifty centimetres from the chrome-plated tap to the sink. The sink had to be made of granite, asbestos cement, artificial stone, stainless steel or glazed earthenware and have concave corners. Next to the sink, a tile-shaped soap
7 The Impact on Reconstruction
That the two booklets mentioned above were actually used in the reconstruction and that the demands of rural women were largely taken into account is apparent not just from the interviews I have conducted with architects involved in the reconstruction,45 but also from the handful of reconstructed farmhouses that did not undergo conversion.
Interior of a reconstructed farmhouse in Maarheeze
source: serge technau, interior of a reconstructed farmhouse in maarheeze, north brabant, 2017 (image archive of the cultural heritage agency of the netherlands (rce), object number 14299–61961)
Floor plan of the living quarters of the reconstructed farmhouse of a small farm
source: de boerin en haar huis (1949), 21
afb. 9. klein bedrijf met toepassing van een woonkeuken |
fig. 9. small farm incorporating an open-plan kitchen |
koestal |
cowshed |
spoelplaats |
utility room |
gang |
hall |
kamer |
room |
woonkeuken |
open-plan kitchen |
slaapk / slaapkamer |
bedroom |
badkam |
bathroom |
Woonkeuken 18–26 m2 |
Open-plan kitchen 18–26 m2 |
Kamer (event. slaapkamer ouders) 14–18 m2 |
Room (possibly parents’ bedroom) 14–18 m2 |
3–4 slaapkamers 12–14 m2 voor slaapkamer ouders 9–12 m2 voor 2 pers.slaapkamers 12–16 m2 voor 4 pers.slaapkamers 6 m2 voor 1 pers.slaapkamer |
3–4 bedrooms 12–14 m2 for parents’ bedroom 9–12 m2 for 2-person bedrooms 12–16 m2 for 4-person bedrooms 6 m2 for 1-person bedroom |
Badkamertje 2,80 m2 (min. afmeting 1,50–1,85 m) |
Bathroom 2.80 m2 (min. dimensions 1.50–1.85 m) |
W.C. 1 m2 min. |
W.C. 1 m2 min. |
Kelder 9 m2 |
Cellar 9 m2 |
Bijkeuken 10–12 m2 |
Pantry 10–12 m2 |
Gang of portaal 2 m2 min. breedte minstens 1 m |
Hall or porch 2 m2 min., at least 1 m wide |
Een woning volgens bovenstaande indeling vraagt een vloeroppervlak van circa 58 m2 en de inhoud ervan bedraagt ongeveer 390 m3 (excl. spoelplaats). |
A dwelling with the above layout requires a floor area of approximately 58 m2 and has a volume of around 390 m3 (excl. utility room). |
When it came to satisfying the farm women’s demands, however, certain restrictions applied: while the farm women ideally wanted to have electricity in their homes, in 1947 some 28 per cent of Dutch farmhouses had not yet been connected to the grid. In most regions this situation did not change immediately as a result of the reconstruction. Although 78 per cent were also not connected to mains water,47 this did not mean that water pipes and sanitary facilities could not be installed and used. After all, individual (electric) pump systems could be used to pump water around the home.
Within the context of the reconstruction, the following were also discouraged by the government due to financial reasons: central heating; more than one toilet in the home; baths and double (from 1950 also single) washbasins; more than one lighting point and one socket in living rooms, with the exception of the open-plan kitchen, where there could be two lighting points, and the “main living rooms,” where two sockets could be installed.48
8 “Prompters” of the Architects
Farm women’s organisations saw the reconstruction of farmhouses as an opportunity to fundamentally improve farmhouses and actively involve farm
Guided, or at least advised, by the aforementioned elites, farm women were able to assume the role of co-producers of the farmhouses within the context of the reconstruction. This is what a journalist from the Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant newspaper was referring to in 1946 when he talked about the farm woman as the “prompter” of the architect.51 This “prompting” was done in various ways: by influencing the guidelines for the reconstruction of the farmhouse and by engaging in individual negotiations with architects and contractors, for which the two publications described here served as a guide. Earlier, in 1934, the booklet De plattelandswoning (The rural home) had been published, which was also intended to serve as a guide for the construction and equipping of the living quarters of farmhouses. This was a publication by H. A. de Vries, a teacher at the national farm household management teacher training college Nieuw Rollecate, and the architect Jan Jans. Theda Mansholt had contributed to the foreword. It can be inferred from the use of language in this booklet that the task of women was mainly seen as ensuring that the living quarters were used correctly. The construction was a matter for (male) architects, and Jans and De Vries were clearly asking them to build principal forms that were typical of the region concerned.52 In the publications mentioned previously, this was not an issue anymore.
Whereas the 1946 booklet Het aandeel der vrouw bij de wederopbouwboerderijen focused exclusively on the reconstruction of farmhouses, the other booklet, De boerin en haar huis, was also intended to reach those who would be “involved in designing, building and equipping farmhouses in the future.”53 After the publication of this second booklet, the interest that organised rural women showed in house building increased further. From the late 1940s, rural women’s organisations held regular exhibitions and special information evenings on practical homes and facilities and how to use them efficiently. This was also the case in Zeeland, for example, after the 1953 North Sea flood, when hundreds of farmhouses were destroyed by a huge storm surge and had to be reconstructed.54 Model homes were also set up in various parts of the country,
In 1956, when the last of the destroyed farmhouses had been reconstructed, a second, revised edition of De boerin en haar huis was published. C.W. Willinge Prins-Visser, a professor teaching in the farm household management programme established in 1952 at Wageningen Agricultural College, had provided additional chapters for this second edition.56 This programme played an important role in providing information on household management within the context of the “regional improvement” measures undertaken from the mid-1950s, which aimed to improve problem areas where agricultural production was lagging behind by means of land consolidation and intensive education programmes. The demands of rural women that had been collected prior to the reconstruction also remained important within this context.57
9 A “Civilisation Offensive”
For the agricultural organisations, modernisation and rationalisation were the main priorities during the reconstruction of the farmhouses. Reconstructed farmhouses had to allow modern approaches to farming, meaning that
The habits and lifestyles of farming families could also be influenced by the new farmhouses. This can be demonstrated by a number of examples relating to family life, health, personal care, hygiene and morality: the rationalisation of the home was meant to reduce the amount of time that farm women spent on housework and was, therefore, intended to allow them to dedicate more time to the family, which needed to be nurtured,59 and more time to personal development. Bedrooms (instead of box beds and sleeping in open lofts) and adequate washing facilities in the living quarters were supposed to lead to good health and good personal hygiene. Separate bathrooms were intended to allow intimacy to be respected, with separate bedrooms for boys and girls serving the same purpose.60 These elements of the reconstructed farmhouses had the potential to change the behavioural patterns of farming families. That did not by any means always happen immediately, however; sometimes there was resistance to change. Some of the reconstructed farmhouses had a shower room, for example. (In the absence of water pipes, a shower bucket was raised and a handle was then pulled to let the water flow out.) However, it was not uncommon for such rooms to be used for other purposes: “In practice, these proved to be ideal for storing toys, begonias or clover seed,” reported G. J. A. Bouma, a National Agricultural Advisor for Farmhouse Construction, before providing information on the correct use of these rooms, in an article on bath and shower facilities in farmhouses.61 A second typical example is the traditional “best room,” which was still found in old farmhouses and which the
This was an outright “civilisation offensive.” Supported by information that familiarised the farmers and farm women with the way these farmhouses worked (as a form of “follow-up care”), the reconstructed farmhouses were intended to contribute to the modernisation of agriculture and, at the same time, at the initiative of rural women’s organisations, to an increase in general well-being in rural areas. Within the context of regional improvement, from the second half of the 1950s onwards steps were taken, structurally and on a broad basis, to bring about this increase in general well-being.64
Besides this, the reconstruction of the farmhouses was linked to another agenda, which became apparent in the information that agricultural organisations provided about the reconstruction and that was linked to the aims described above: strengthening the independence and self-sufficiency of farmers and farm women. This represents the emergence of the aim of promoting a far-reaching change in the mentality of farmers and farm women, something that would later become a key area of focus of the regional improvement measures: farmers and farm women had to be given a “taste for modernisation”; they should not merely be open to modernisation, but should, above all, actively pursue it themselves.65
The reconstruction of the farmhouses, the living quarters and the stables enabled farm women and farmers to work more efficiently and thus to spend less time on work.
From the interviews I have conducted, we know that maidservants who had helped the farm women with their work before the war, often did not or could not come back when the farmhouses were reconstructed. In the reconstructed farmhouses, farm women’s work became less time consuming, partly because the new living rooms could be cleaned much more easily due to the new hygiene standards which were followed in the reconstructed farmhouses. Also, the rationalisation of the composition of the new kitchens led to more time-effective work. Women were required to carry out their work in the family and household in a professional manner – the new rationalised kitchens could help in that sense.66
Letter from Annet Schaik to the Federation of Christian Farm Women, Farmers’ Daughters and Other Rural Women and Girls, 7 September 1946, in: Archive of Atria, Institute on gender equality and women’s history (Atria), Archive of the Christian Rural Women’s Federation (cpb), file 73.
Parts of this chapter were published in Dutch in Sophie Elpers, Wederopbouwboerderijen: Agrarisch erfgoed in de strijd over traditie en modernisering, 1940–1955 (Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers, 2019), 204–18.
Elpers, Wederopbouwboerderijen. For post-war reconstruction in the Netherlands in general, see Antia Blom, Simone Vermaat, and Ben de Vries, eds, Post-War Reconstruction in the Netherlands 1945–1965: The Future of a Bright and Brutal Heritage (Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers, 2016); Koos Bosma and Cor Wagenaar, eds, Een geruisloze doorbraak: De geschiedenis van architectuur en stedebouw tijdens de bezetting en de wederopbouw van Nederland (Rotterdam: nai Uitgevers, 1995).
Elpers, Wederopbouwboerderijen, 116–19.
The reconstruction was partly funded by the state and partly paid by the farmers concerned – the percentage was dependent on the size of the farms: Elpers, Wederopbouwboerderijen, 56–61.
From 1930, there was a joint body representing farm women: the non-denominational Dutch Federation of Farm Women and Other Rural Women (Nederlandse Bond voor Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwen). Farm women’s federations were also established as part of the provincial Catholic federations of farm women. In 1939, a national federation was founded for Protestant Christian farm women: the Federation of Christian Farm Women, Farmers’ Daughters and Rural Women and Girls (Christen Boerinnen, Boerendochters, Plattelandsvrouwen en -meisjes Bond – cbpb). Together with the umbrella consultation body, the Centre for Farm Women and Other Rural Women’s Organisations (founded in 1946, after the first steps towards its foundation had been taken in 1940), this meant that an extensive network was in place that linked farm women across the whole country.
Margreet van der Burg, “Geen tweede boer”: Gender, landbouwmodernisering en onderwijs aan plattelandsvrouwen in Nederland, 1863–1968 (Wageningen: Afdeling Agrarische Geschiedenis, Wageningen Universiteit, 2002), 262–68.
A. C. Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw bij de wederopbouwboerderijen (Den Haag: Nederlandse Bond van Plattelandsvrouwen, 1946); Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, in De boerin en haar huis (= Landbouw 10) (’s-Gravenhage: Staatsdrukkerij- en Uitgeverijbedrijf, 1949).
Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1949, 3; see also Bé Lamberts, Boerderijen: Categoriaal onderzoek wederopbouw 1940–1965 (Zeist: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2007), 76.
These guidelines were drawn up by A.C. Wiersma-Risselada: Atria, cpb, file 722; adapted version in De Plattelandsvrouw 4 (1946): 64.
The living quarters were, however, where the tasks were carried out for which farm women had primary responsibility: housekeeping and looking after the children. See, for example, Van der Burg, “Geen tweede boer,” 325; Margreet van der Burg and Krista Lievaart, Drie generaties in schort en overall: Terugblik op een eeuw vrouwenarbeid in de landbouw (Wageningen: Afdeling Agrarische Geschiedenis, Wageningen Universiteit, 1998), 21; Lorraine Garkovich and Janet Bokemeier, “Agricultural Mechanization and American Farm Women’s Economic Roles,” in Women and Farming: Changing Roles, Changing Structures, ed. Wava Haney and Jane Knowles (Boulder, CO and London: Westview Press, 1988), 212.
From 1935 to 1945, approximately two hundred thousand women took part in fourteen thousand household management courses. See “Huishoudelijke voorlichting ten plattelande,” De nieuwe veldbode, 26 August 1948, 571.
Van der Burg, “Geen tweede boer.”
Van der Burg and Lievaart, Drie generaties, 20–21. Incidentally, the discussion about the ideal role for women was not initially conducted amongst farm women themselves, but amongst well-to-do women who were participating in the growing women’s movement.
Van der Burg and Lievaart, Drie generaties, 28.
Van der Burg and Lievaart, Drie generaties, 20–28, 112; Van der Burg, “Geen tweede boer,” 313.
See, for example, the reports of the Gelderland, Limburg and Groningen study committees in: Atria, cpb, file 722.
Lamberts, Boerderijen, 77.
“Verslag van de vergadering van de boerderijencommissie en afgevaardigden van Verenigingen van Plattelandsvrouwen en door oorlogsgeweld gedupeerden,” 13 November 1946, in: Nationaal Archief (na), The Hague, the Netherlands, Directie van de Landbouw: Veeteelt, 2.11.05, file 204; Bureau Wederopbouw Boerderijen, “Uittreksel uit de rapporten van de boerinnenbonden etc. betreffende de grootte van boerenwoningen,” in: na, Directie van de Landbouw: Veeteelt, 2.11.05, file 204.
“Algemene regelen en voorwaarden voor de financiering van de herbouw van door oorlogsgeweld geheel of gedeeltelijk verwoeste of onherstelbaar beschadigde boerderijen (1948),” 4, in: na, vrom, 2.17.03, file 5052. See also “Financierings- en premiumregeling oorlogsschade boerderijen,” Nederlandse Staatscourant, 21 May 1952, 5; Wiersma-Risselada, Aandeel der vrouw, 9–11; Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1949, 21–25; A. D. van Eck, “Nota,” 11, in: rce (Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands), collection shbo/bwb, no file number.
In the conservative Catholic agricultural journal Boer en tuinder (Farmer and Horticulturist), farm women were asked to accept farmhouse designs with small windows in the living quarters so that the intimate, enclosed character of historic farmhouses could be retained. See the articles in Boer en Tuinder: “Heemkunde,” “Heemkunde,” 3 April 1948, 7; “Wederopbouw Boerderijen en het aandeel van de vrouw,” 28 August 1948; “Boereninterieur: Inrichting van de boerenwoning,” 31 December 1948; “Nieuwe ideeën en moderne huizen,” 28 January 1950. The cultural heritage organisation Bond Heemschut and conservative architects were also proponents of small glazing bar arrangements. Farm women opposed them, stating: “… you come to enjoy this seclusion once a year on your holidays, while we have to live with it all year round.” Cited from N. B. Goudswaard, Naar een goede en goedkope boerderij (Meppel: N.V. Noord-Nederlandse Drukkerij, 1950), 12.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw, 12–16.
Report on the period from March to July 1946 by Annet Schaik, in: Atria, cpb, file 73.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw; Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1949.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw, 5.
The aforementioned focus on the working area can also be attributed to the fact that the Agency for the Reconstruction of Farmhouses and the advisory committees relied on the Housing Act as far as the living quarters were concerned. See A. D. van Eck, “Nota,” 16, in: rce, collection shbo/bwb, no file number. For information on the Housing Act see Noud de Vreeze, ed. 6,5 miljoen woningen: 100 jaar woningwet en wooncultuur in Nederland. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010, 2001; Karin Gaillard, “De ideale woning op papier,” in Honderd jaar wonen in Nederland 1900–2000, ed. Jaap Huisman, Irene Cieraad, and Karin Gaillard (Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010, 2000), 111–71; J. G. M. Keesom, Wonen. Woning. Wet. Wij wonen: 100 jaar Woningwet (Amsterdam: Stedelijke Woningdienst Amsterdam, 2000).
Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1949, 6.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw, 5.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw, 6.
Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie voor Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1956.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw, 5.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw, 12; see also Greta Smit, “Veranderingen in de huishoud,” in Nederlandse Bond van Plattelandsvrouwen 1930–1955, ed. Nederlandse Bond van Plattelandsvrouwen (Groningen, 1955), 74–75.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw, 11–12.
For the other results of the study conducted by Nieuw Rollecate, see the documents in: Atria, cpb, file 722.
This was based on the scientific management theory of the engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor.
Christine Frederick, De denkende huisvrouw: Nieuwe inzichten (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1928).
Erna Meyer, De nieuwe huishouding (Amsterdam: Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1929). A third guide that largely corresponded to the other two was translated from French in 1932: Paulette Bernège, Orde en methode in de gezinshuishouding (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1932). See also Margrieth Wilke, “Kennis en kunde. Handboeken voor huisvrouwen,” in Schoon genoeg: Huisvrouwen en huishoudtechnologie in Nederland 1898–1998, ed. Ruth Oldenziel and Carolien Bouw (Nijmegen: sun, 1998), 72–80.
Van der Burg, “Geen tweede boer,” 248–58.
Frederick, De denkende huisvrouw, 42.
Mayke Groffen and Sjouk Hoitsma, Het geluk van de huisvrouw (Amsterdam: sun, 2004), 109–14; Marja Berendsen and Anneke van Otterloo, “Het ‘gezinslaboratorium’: De betwiste keuken en de wording van de moderne huisvrouw,” Tijdschrift voor sociale geschiedenis 28, no. 3 (2002): 301–22; Irene Cieraad, “Het huishouden tussen droom en daad: Over de toekomst van de keuken,” in Schoon genoeg: Huisvrouwen en huishoudtechnologie in Nederland 1898–1998, ed. Ruth Oldenziel and Carolien Bouw (Nijmegen: sun, 1998), 40–44.
“Het keukenprobleem,” Goed wonen 1 (1948): 185–88.
Wiersma-Risselada, Het aandeel der vrouw, 7. See also A. C. Wiersma-Risselada, “Woonhuis of kamer met kooknis,” De Plattelandsvrouw 5, no. 7 (1947): 102–3.
F. Sander, “Wederopbouw Boerderijen 1940–1956,” in: rce, collection shbo/bwb, no file number. The working kitchen was mainly constructed in the northern provinces, in Zeeland and on small farms.
Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1949, 35.
See the interview with Oldhoff, Rikken and Van Rijsbergen, in: Meertens Institute, collection “Erfenis van het verlies,” file 1012.
A. D. van Eck, “Nota,” 16, in: rce, collection shbo/bwb, no file number; see also Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1949, 6–7.
Evert W. Hofstee, Rural Life and Rural Welfare in the Netherlands (Den Haag: Government Printing and Publishing Office, 1957), 130.
A. D. van Eck, “Nota,” appendix 2, in: rce, collection shbo/bwb, no file number. See also the letter from the Minister for Reconstruction and Public Housing to the Minister of Finance, 14 September 1949, appendix 1: Bureau Wederopbouw Boerderijen: “Korte omschrijving van de sobere uitvoering van een boerderij, tevens richtlijn voor het samenstellen van het bestek,” in: na, vrom, 2.17.03, file 5052.
Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1949, 8.
See the reports of the study committees of the Gelderland, Limburg and Groningen farm women’s federations in: na, Directie van de Landbouw: Akkerbouw en Weidebouw, 2.11.01, file 372; “Moderne boerderijen Nederland.”
“De wederopbouw van boerderijen. Plattelandsvrouwen wensen een adviserende stem,” Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, 29 April 1946.
H. A. de Vries and Jan Jans, De plattelandswoning (= Bibliotheek voor de huisvrouw op het platteland 3) (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1934).
Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1949, 51.
“Om de Watersnood,” De nieuwe veldbode, 30 April 1953, 631.
Lamberts, Boerderijen, 79. A comparison with women’s activities in the area of urban house building reveals that, shortly after the Second World War, the strategies adopted by the Dutch Housewives’ Association and women’s house building advisory committees geared towards the urban context showed similarities with the strategies of rural women. However, there is no evidence of any closer collaboration between rural and urban women within the context of the reconstruction. See, for example, Liesbeth Bervoets and Ruth Oldenziel, “Vrouwenorganisaties als producenten van consumptie en burgerschap 1880–1980,” Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis 28, no. 3 (2002): 273–300; Elisabeth M. L. Bervoets, Marije Th. Wilmink, and Frank C. A. Veraart, “Coproductie: Emancipatie van de gebruiker? 1920–1970,” in Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw, vol. vi, Bouw, ed. E. M. L. Bervoets (Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2003), 161–95; Wies van Moorsel, Contact en controle: Het vrouwbeeld van de Stichting Goed Wonen (Amsterdam: sua, 1992), 131. For construction activities of women in Northwest Germany in preindustrial times, see Thomas Spohn, “Bauherrinnen: Materialien zum Anteil von Frauen am Bauen in Westfalen,” Rheinisch-westfälische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 57 (2012): 35–74.
Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening, De boerin en haar huis, 1956, 7.
Erwin H. Karel, “De maakbare boer: Streekverbetering als instrument van het Nederlandse landbouwbeleid 1953–1970,” Historia agriculturae 37 (Groningen/Wageningen: Nederlands Agronomisch Historisch Instituut, 2005), 244.
This highlights the interaction and reciprocity between people and artefacts: on the one hand, people shape objects and give them meanings; on the other, objects influence people, both through their physical manifestation and the meanings they have acquired.
Gerrie Andela, Kneedbaar landschap, kneedbaar volk: De heroïsche jaren van de ruilverkavelingen in Nederland (Bussum: thoth, 2000), 133.
For information on this topic, for Belgium, see Sofie de Caigny and Wouter Vanderstede, “Spiegel van het hemelhuis: De wisselwerking tussen woonideaal en sociale rollen bij de Belgische Boerinnenbond (1907–1940),” Tijdschrift voor sociale en economische geschiedenis 2, no. 1 (2005): 11.
Bouma, G. J. A., “Een badprobleem,” De nieuwe veldbode, 14 Feburary 1952; see also G. J. A. Bouma, “Het Rijkslandbouwconsulentschap voor Boerderijbouw” (= chapter from 7000 jaar bouw van boerderijen in Nederland, manuscript), 4, in: rce, collection shbo/Bouma, no file number, box 2.
André Geurts, Boerderijen in de Noordoostpolder: Bouwhistorie en vormgeving 1942–1962 (Lelystad: Uitgeverij De Twaalfde Provincie, 2003), 31; Letter from A. D. van Eck to the “Director-General for Agriculture,” 5 April 1944, 3, in: hfa (Flevoland Archive), Directie van het Openbaar Lichaam De Wieringermeer (Ijsselmeerpolders), 0714, file 1716.
See, for example, the interview with Van Maurik (1 h 14 min), in: Meertens Institute, collection “Erfenis van het verlies,” file 1012.
Andela, Kneedbaar landschap, kneedbaar volk, 128–151. See also Kees Schuyt and Ed Taverne, 1950: Welvaart in zwart-wit (Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 2000), 214.
Andela, Kneedbaar landschap, kneedbaar volk, 148. See also Ton Duffhues, Voor een betere toekomst: Het werk van de Noordbrabantse Christelijke Boerenbond voor bedrijf en gezin, 1896–1996 (Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers, 1996), 222; Karel, De maakbare boer, 1–20, 27.
Van der Burg, “Geen tweede boer,” 332–33.
Bibliography
Andela, Gerrie. Kneedbaar landschap, kneedbaar volk: De hero ïsche jaren van de ruilverkavelingen in Nederland. Bussum: thoth, 2000.
Berendsen, Marja, and Anneke van Otterloo. “Het ‘gezinslaboratorium’: De betwiste keuken en de wording van de moderne huisvrouw.” Tijdschrift voor sociale geschiedenis 28, no. 3 (2002): 301–22.
Bernège, Paulette. Orde en methode in de gezinshuishouding. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1932.
Bervoets, Liesbeth, and Ruth Oldenziel. “Vrouwenorganisaties als producenten van consumptie en burgerschap 1880–1980.” Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis 28, no. 3 (2002): 273–300.
Bervoets, Elisabeth M. L., Marije Th. Wilmink, and Frank C. A. Veraart. “Coproductie: Emancipatie van de gebruiker? 1920–1970.” In Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw. Vol. vi, Bouw, edited by E. M. L. Bervoets, 161–95. Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2003.
Blom, Anita, Simone Vermaat, and Ben de Vries, eds. Post-War Reconstruction in the Netherlands 1945–1965: The Future of a Bright and Brutal Heritage. Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers, 2016.
“Boereninterieur: Inrichting van de boerenwoning.” Boer en Tuinder, 31 December 1948.
Bosma, Koos, and Cor Wagenaar, eds. Een geruisloze doorbraak: De geschiedenis van architectuur en stedebouw tijdens de bezetting en de wederopbouw van Nederland. Rotterdam: nai Uitgevers, 1995.
Bouma, G. J. A. “Een badprobleem.” De nieuwe veldbode, 14 Feburary 1952.
Burg, Margreet van der. “Geen tweede boer”: Gender, landbouwmodernisering en onderwijs aan plattelandsvrouwen in Nederland, 1863–1968. Wageningen: Afdeling Agrarische Geschiedenis, Wageningen Universiteit, 2002.
Burg, Margreet van der, and Krista Lievaart. Drie generaties in schort en overall: Terugblik op een eeuw vrouwenarbeid in de landbouw. Wageningen: Afdeling Agrarische Geschiedenis, Wageningen Universiteit, 1998.
Caigny, Sofie de, and Wouter Vanderstede. “Spiegel van het hemelhuis: De wisselwerking tussen woonideaal en sociale rollen bij de Belgische Boerinnenbond (1907–1940).” Tijdschrift voor sociale en economische geschiedenis 2, no. 1 (2005): 3–29.
Centrale van Boerinnen en andere Plattelandsvrouwenorganisaties/Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij en Voedselvoorziening. De boerin en haar huis (= Landbouw 10) .’s-Gravenhage: Staatsdrukkerij- en Uitgeverijbedrijf, 1949.
Cieraad, Irene. “Het huishouden tussen droom en daad: Over de toekomst van de keuken.” In Schoon genoeg: Huisvrouwen en huishoudtechnologie in Nederland 1898–1998, edited by Ruth Oldenziel and Carolien Bouw, 31–58. Nijmegen: sun, 1998.
“De wederopbouw van boerderijen. Plattelandsvrouwen wensen een adviserende stem.” Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, 29 April 1946.
Duffhues, Ton. Voor een betere toekomst: Het werk van de Noordbrabantse Christelijke Boerenbond voor bedrijf en gezin, 1896–1996. Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers, 1996.
Elpers, Sophie. Wederopbouwboerderijen: Agrarisch erfgoed in de strijd over traditie en modernisering, 1940–1955. Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers, 2019.
“Financierings- en premiumregeling oorlogsschade boerderijen.” Nederlandse Staatscourant, 21 May 1952, 5.
Frederick, Christine. De denkende huisvrouw: Nieuwe inzichten. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1928.
Gaillard, Karin. “De ideale woning op papier.” In Honderd jaar wonen in Nederland 1900–2000, edited by Jaap Huisman, Irene Cieraad, and Karin Gaillard, 111–71. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010, 2000.
Garkovich, Lorraine, and Janet Bokemeier. “Agricultural Mechanization and American Farm Women’s Economic Roles.” In Women and Farming: Changing roles, Changing Structures, edited by Wava Haney and Jane Knowles, 211–28. Boulder, CO and London: Westview Press, 1988.
Geurts, André. Boerderijen in de Noordoostpolder: Bouwhistorie en vormgeving 1942–1962. Lelystad: Uitgeverij De Twaalfde Provincie, 2003.
Goudswaard, N. B. Naar een goede en goedkope boerderij. Meppel: N.V. Noord-Nederlandse Drukkerij, 1950.
Groffen, Mayke, and Sjouk Hoitsma. Het geluk van de huisvrouw. Amsterdam: sun, 2004.
“Heemkunde.” Boer en Tuinder, 3 April 1948, 7.
“Het keukenprobleem.” Goed wonen 1 (1948): 185–88.
Hofstee, Evert W. Rural Life and Rural Welfare in the Netherlands. Den Haag: Government Printing and Publishing Office, 1957.
“Huishoudelijke voorlichting ten plattelande.” De nieuwe veldbode, 26 August 1948, 571.
Karel, Erwin H. “De maakbare boer: Streekverbetering als instrument van het Nederlandse landbouwbeleid 1953–1970.” Historia agriculturae 37. Groningen/Wageningen: Nederlands Agronomisch Historisch Instituut, 2005.
Keesom, J. G. M. Wonen. Woning. Wet. Wij wonen: 100 jaar Woningwet. Amsterdam: Stedelijke Woningdienst Amsterdam, 2000.
Lamberts, Bé. Boerderijen: Categoriaal onderzoek wederopbouw 1940–1965. Zeist: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2007.
Meyer, Erna. De nieuwe huishouding. Amsterdam: Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1929.
“Moderne boerderijen Nederland.” De Plattelandsvrouw, December 1953.
Moorsel, Wies van. Contact en controle: Het vrouwbeeld van de Stichting Goed Wonen. Amsterdam: sua, 1992.
“Nieuwe ideeën en moderne huizen.” Boer en Tuinder, 28 January 1950.
“Om de Watersnood.” De nieuwe veldbode, 30 April 1953.
Schuyt, Kees, and Ed Taverne. 1950: Welvaart in zwart-wit. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 2000.
Smit, Greta. “Veranderingen in de huishoud.” In Nederlandse Bond van Plattelandsvrouwen 1930–1955, edited by Nederlandse Bond van Plattelandsvrouwen, 73–77. Groningen, 1955.
Spohn, Thomas. “Bauherrinnen: Materialien zum Anteil von Frauen am Bauen in Westfalen.” Rheinisch-westf älische Zeitschrift f ür Volkskunde 57 (2012): 35–74.
Vreeze, Noud de, ed. 6,5 miljoen woningen: 100 jaar woningwet en wooncultuur in Nederland. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010, 2001.
Vries, H. A. de, and Jan Jans. De plattelandswoning (= Bibliotheek voor de huisvrouw op het platteland 3). Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1934.
“Wederopbouw Boerderijen en het aandeel van de vrouw.” Boer en Tuinder, 28 August 1948.
Wiersma-Risselada, A. C. Het aandeel der vrouw bij de wederopbouwboerderijen. Den Haag: Nederlandse Bond van Plattelandsvrouwen, 1946.
Wiersma-Risselada, A. C. “Woonhuis of kamer met kooknis.” De Plattelandsvrouw 5, no. 7 (1947): 102–3.
Wilke, Margrieth. “Kennis en kunde. Handboeken voor huisvrouwen.” In Schoon genoeg: Huisvrouwen en huishoudtechnologie in Nederland 1898–1998, edited by Ruth Oldenziel and Carolien Bouw, 59–90. Nijmegen: sun, 1998.