222 replies to this topic

[Carrot Top]

Interesting point, rickster. I wonder if all the food companies are facing this problem or if it was one specific to that company due to "how the directions are written".

If language is not made very clear, people do not take the time to read it.

Lots of people have "no time".

[rickster]

All I can say is that the inability to understand directions was rising over time, which must be driven by a) a decline in the ability to write directions b) a decline in the ability to read directions or c) a decline in the ability to understand how to execute the directions.

This was one of only several data examples.

[Carrot Top]

Maybe if the directions had been voice-over'd by a celebrity chef on a television that had a TiVo attached to it so that the hands-on tearing apart of the package and dropping in boiling water could be seen a la minute set right in front of the stove it would have worked.

Edited by Carrot Top, 29 October 2005 - 08:03 AM.

[Carrot Top]

More on our subject

[Ling]

Honestly, the underhanded personal attacks need to stop.  They add nothing to the topic.  I think a little common courtesy goes a long way in a debate.

If I may flatly state my beliefs for those who enjoy bashing them:
1) The average American or W. European woman now cook less than her forebearers.
2) The above-named group likely cares less about cooking than their forebearers for numerous personal and sociological reasons
3) Ramsay is correct in making the above observations.
4) It upsets me that women are choosing to cook less because I like people who cook
5) In my experience I have less respect for people who can't cook (yes this includes, but is not limited to, young women) because I am a judgemental individual and like to cook

These are not sexist beliefs.  Anyone is more than welcome to refute those, but to nitpick on the semantics of the word "hate" or to take quotes out of context is both immature and unproductive.  Again, the majority of posters, who also happen to see the truth in Ramsay's statement, reinforce the fact that my beliefs, except for possibly the last one, are not that outlandish.

Unless deborah, or Irishgirl, or carrottop, or anyone else can bring in pertinent information (perhaps a figure that dictate more women are cooking recreationally now than ever before, or something to that effect), I'm done here.  I feel I've outlined my point sensibly and have backed up my beliefs with pertinent anecdotal evidence.

Is that not an oxymoron?

So by following your "evidence" that many young women nowadays don't know how to cook, we have a friend who "hates you" (said in humour, of course) because your dinner sounds better than hers. And another friend who feels gratified that you've educated her about food through Jean-Georges' incredible skill in the kitchen. Those are pretty sweeping generalizations to extend to all of womankind. (Or even to "young women", as you've noted that this is your preferred company. )

Yes, I've said that I don't know many (or any) people my age who can cook, but I've never been to culinary school, and the last I've heard, enrollment is up. If I were in culinary school, I'm sure I'd have many friends (young women included) who love to cook. The fact that many young people don't seem to want to cook nowadays is indeed sad, but I don't find it any more "upsetting" when a young woman doesn't seem interested in learning.

Finally, are not the terms "home cook" or "baker" very much open to interpretation? Some people think that by opening a box of cake mix and tossing in a few ingredients, they are "baking". (Witness the new Duncan Hines commercials where you see a few women sitting around, extolling the genius of one lady who has the time to make a layer cake! With filling! And frosting!) I'm not saying they are right or wrong in thinking so, but the use of cake mixes (or other pre-made or partially made products, such as canned icings, mousse mixes, custard bases, etc.) do not figure into my understanding of what true baking entails. And of course, that is not to say my definition of baking or cooking is "correct", it's just what I believe.

And by that extension, did the previous generation really "cook" at a higher level than our generation today? I've seen some pretty horrifying concoctions from the '70s online. I would hope that society has moved up from there. I think the average person is certainly more educated about food, even if they don't know how to cook. They might not know how to do duck confit at home, but they sure as hell know how to order it at a restaurant! So really, I think that even if more people of our generation don't seem to be into cooking, it's a trade-off when people are more open to trying new things and buying locally-sourced, quality ingredients for their occasional forays into the kitchen.

Edited by Ling, 29 October 2005 - 03:58 PM.

[ingridsf]

And by that extension, did the previous generation really "cook" at a higher level than our generation today? I've seen some pretty horrifying concoctions from the '70s online. I would hope that society has moved up from there. I think the average person is certainly more educated about food, even if they don't know how to cook. They might not know how to do duck confit at home, but they sure as hell know how to order it at a restaurant! So really, I think that even if more people of our generation don't seem to be into cooking, it's a trade-off when people are more open to trying new things and buying locally-sourced, quality ingredients for their occasional forays into the kitchen.

That's just it, IMO. I'm 40, my mom is mid-60's; some of the previous posters are a generation in back of me. All 3 generations have their own interpretations of what a "real cook" is. (There's certainly broad inter-generational variance as well, but that's another conversation.)

My mother considers herself a real cook; she prepared nearly all of our family's meals herself until I was 12, and she had to start working as a school-teacher. My father did/does cook, but although he taught me how to caramelize onions, he never took responsibility for cooking our meals. I was happy to begin cooking our dinners when my mother needed help.

What was my first menu? It was porkchops brushed with Kraft Catalina dressing and broiled; frozen french fries; and Birds-Eye frozen petit-poi peas. I was proud to get it all on the table hot. And you bet your sweet ass I was a real cook, even if I was using ingredients that would make an eG'er swoon, and not in a good way. My pork chops weren't dry, I'd salted the cooking water and used a lot of butter on the peas, and the fries were...okay they were just fries but they were up to my family's usual exacting standards.

Okay, my point. My mother says that by the standards of her mother, a farm-woman, she's not a real cook. It's not painful to her, just recognition that she's not dressing the chicken she roasts, canning fruit, or any number of cooking tasks that were ordinary to her mother. My mother, in contrast to me, bakes much better and more from scratch, and has a doctorate in gravy we should all envy.

I, compared to many contemporaries of both genders, would appear to know more at times. But you know what? Actually get us in a kitchen together and they so often wipe the floor with me on technique. I have a history of being "the cook," and they don't. It's self perception more often than not. And women, esp young women, still seem especially prone to down-playing their expertise and knowledge.

The word that still sticks out to me in, "Women can't cook," is "women." Even if it's true -- which I don't buy -- I think we notice so many men cooking because men cooking is still men playing against type. That we notice it so much is a factor that only emphasizes the cheap sexism of the claim.

[BryanZ]

Anecdotal evidence as an oxymoron??? An anecdote is simply a story, so I'm using my personal stories as evidence to back up my claims. That makes sense to me.

As has been said numerous times, no one claims that women can't cook by their nature. Thousands of years of anthropological evidence show that women traditionally do cook. It was the journalists who placed that headline on the article. If nothing else, it was the editors who came up the title who were trying to generate publicity.

Edited by BryanZ, 29 October 2005 - 05:43 PM.

[ingridsf]

Is a friend to be looked down upon simply because he likes Kraft dinner? Should he look down on me simply because I don't understand hockey? I should hope true friendship is not based on something superficial.

I'm a judgemental person. There's not a much more I can say there that pertains to this topic, so I'll leave it at that.

I refuse to eat Safeway cakes.

Oh dearie dear.

No less a Big Hungry Boy than Calvin Trillin has enjoyed Kraft dinner. There's a very funny story he tells about having a craving for it after not tasting it for years. His wife, Alice, buys the old Blue Box and, after he stops her from grating fresh parm on it, consumes said product. Yet, it doesn't satisfy. It is only on the following day that discovers his real craving was for day-old Kraft dinner.

I myself have a taste Pepperidge Farm frozen turnovers. (Not when they're frozen, silly.) It doesn't stop me from appreciating non-PF turnovers. Any woman, or man, who can cook, i.e., make "real" turnovers, is welcome to prevent me from consuming PF turnovers by mailing me a supply of their superior product. Raspberry is my favorite kind. Thank you.

The thing about the Safeway cake reminded me of the thin line between discerning taste and rudeness. Granted, you're not obligated to accept every piece of food that's offered, but if a friend's birthday celebration had such a cake, of course I'd eat some. I'd turn it down if diabetes were an issue but that's different.

[Gul_Dekar]

I too am a college-aged individual who enjoys cooking and baking. I have never ever had foie gras, never eaten kobe beef or maybe encountered a meyer lemon at the grocery store. I cannot discern the difference between 'good' food and 'great' food. Yet, I think I can safely say I respect what food is, and what its most important purpose in life is - sustenance. If one cannot appreciate this simple fact, and would deliberately reject perfectly good food just because its not 'gourmet' enough, then its just plain hypocrisy to judge others because they choose to eat something you find 'unfit for your palate'.

And on a more relevant note, I do believe this whole 'women no longer cooking' thing is only an issue because many of us are still so ingrained with the patriarchal notion that women SHOULD know how to cook (and also vice versa about guys knowning how to cook...which leads us to accept that its ok/natural for a guy to not know how to cook and make a big hoo-hah when guys do). I personally think it's all just gender roles balancing itself out. We might eventually come to accepting it, and this whole issue would be just as irrelevant as people switching from Tide to Cheer.

Edited by Gul_Dekar, 29 October 2005 - 08:11 PM.

[Ling]

Anecdotal evidence as an oxymoron???  An anecdote is simply a story, so I'm using my personal stories as evidence to back up my claims.  That makes sense to me.

Yes, you're right--an anecdote is a story. A story is not evidence.

[lesfen]

I personally think it's all just gender roles balancing itself out. We might eventually come to accepting it, and this whole issue would be just as irrelevant as people switching from Tide to Cheer.

Heh heh... awesome.

I just caulked and sealed my windows for winter while my husband played Madden. I'm heading over to the DIY site to post "Men Can't Winterize!!"

Why can't we ALL just settle on the fact that it's all about interest? People that aren't interested in cooking aren't going to cook... yet. In my group of 30-somethings, there are two of us that actually cook for the love of cooking. We seek it out. Magazines, gourmet markets, ethnic markets, cooking classes, etc. The others seek out good food. They know what's good and what isn't. They eat in fine restaurants. BUT, when it comes to entertaining or feeding their families they turn to ready made, take out, or Sandra Lee short cuts. They don't enjoy "cooking" and you know what... they don't HAVE to! You can look down your noses at people who don't cook as much as you do, but cooking is fast becoming a hobby, much like sewing. Are you going to give your friends a rash of shit because they can't sew a button on their jacket, mend a blowout, or hem their pants?! No! We live in an era of convenience and cooking may just be casualty of our time.

(Mental indulgence... foodie popping up in an episode of The Jetson's to give Jane Jetson a good tongue lashing for serving her family food pellets. )

As far as you youn'uns go, cut these girls some slack. Just because they're not cooking now, doesn't mean they won't. Jesus, when I was in my early twentys I was more concerned with crafting a bong out of a squash than I was with cooking the damn thing! You have your whole lives ahead of you. Simma down. If they know good food, they're already on the right track. My best friend in the whole world says to me on a monthly basis, "you know, when I settle down you're gonna have to teach me to cook." When she's ready, I'll be here.

As far as GR goes... who gives a shit? We really need to stop feeding these egomaniacs with reaction.

[ingridsf]

Jesus, when I was in my early twentys I was more concerned with crafting a bong out of a squash than I was with cooking the damn thing! 

Lesfen, you just may be the new Martha. "Baked squash," heh. Now quit bogarting the butternut.

[Corinna Dunne]

The show went out earlier this week. Ramsay is much more chilled than usual and looks like he's thoroughly enjoying the company of women! Comments from the UK Forum on this link:
http://forums.egulle...showtopic=76767

His £500k kitchen looks great, beautiful house, beautiful wife and kids... who was it who said "there's no such thing as bad publicity"?

Joan Collins is the celeb next week which should be fun!

Edited by Corinna Dunne, 30 October 2005 - 12:25 PM.

[Megan Blocker]

Jesus, when I was in my early twentys I was more concerned with crafting a bong out of a squash than I was with cooking the damn thing!

Priceless, Lesfen.

And by that extension, did the previous generation really "cook" at a higher level than our generation today? I've seen some pretty horrifying concoctions from the '70s online. I would hope that society has moved up from there. I think the average person is certainly more educated about food, even if they don't know how to cook. They might not know how to do duck confit at home, but they sure as hell know how to order it at a restaurant! So really, I think that even if more people of our generation don't seem to be into cooking, it's a trade-off when people are more open to trying new things and buying locally-sourced, quality ingredients for their occasional forays into the kitchen.

Good point, Ling - and well said.

[BryanZ]

Over the weekend I crafted another long post in reference to some of the interesting points gul_dekar brought up. But, alas, it was somehow lost (or maybe I just hit preview instead of post. Regardless, that's water under the bridge.

But I did think of something recently that's not directly related to this thread's headline but deals with similar implications. What do women think of the trend "Men Aren't Chivalrous". In other words, I think it's hard to deny that while women have made strides toward complete equality in society, men have also become less chivalrous in the traditional sense. Do women on this board see it as a bad thing that men aren't as willing to hold open doors and pay for dates?

I'm not judging people here, but that type of traditional behavior is inherently sexist and reveals many of the double-standards in current gender roles and relations. Is it okay to complain that men don't treat women like "ladies"?

This isn't a rant, but something I'm honestly curious about. I kind of think it's sad that chivalry is on the decline, though I also feel that women should be the literal equals of men. Just some thoughts on how issues of sexism brought up here can be applied outside of the food world.

[Tess]

But I did think of something recently that's not directly related to this thread's headline but deals with similar implications.  What do women think of the trend "Men Aren't Chivalrous".

I'd say it's about as sexist as the "women can't cook" one. I mean, it's really idiotic to complain about things like men not paying for dates. Women should be equal, period.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with everybody being generous and helpful. I'm a woman; I hold doors open for people if it seems like it will help and I pay for people's meals. It's my pleasure to do it.

[Pontormo]

Yes, I agree, we're really starting to get off topic, here and what was fascinating to me last week is starting to run its course.

Bryan, it sounds as if you did not anticipate some of the reactions you have received to your posts here and have a number of sincere questions that the thread engendered. (Sorry.)

I encourage you to consider taking one elective in Women's Studies or Gender Studies some time in the near future if you're not graduating in December. Duke University's press is well known for its publications in the field and one of the best students I ever taught abroad was a double-major in Women's Studies and ???? (I forget if it was Government or a science ) at Duke. I have good friends whose son just graduated summa from the University of Toronto. One of his biggest fans is the professor who taught a class in Women's Studies where he was the only brave male student (this should not be the case, but sadly often is). He got an A+ and worked on a research project related to his major.

[Milagai]

I heartily second Pontormo's suggestion, as it will clarify to you as no
amount of internet postings can why the term "chivalrous"
is outdated, and is rooted in a specific history of gender and
class bias... which is why it makes people's teeth grind nowadays.

Just plain common courtesy however is always appreciated.....
and is only tangentially related to chivalry.....


Milagai

[BryanZ]

Just plain common courtesy however is always appreciated.....
and is only tangentially related to chivalry.....

I think that's a good way to put it. But I was just remarking it could be hypocritical for a woman to believe in the old precepts of chivalry while embracing her inherent rights to equality.

[Tess]

I think that's a good way to put it.  But I was just remarking it could be hypocritical for a woman to believe in the old precepts of chivalry while embracing her inherent rights to equality.

It wouldn't just be hypocritical; it would be blindingly stupid. If you ever meet a woman who takes that position, you might want to address it with her.

[ingridsf]

I think that's a good way to put it.  But I was just remarking it could be hypocritical for a woman to believe in the old precepts of chivalry while embracing her inherent rights to equality.

It wouldn't just be hypocritical; it would be blindingly stupid. If you ever meet a woman who takes that position, you might want to address it with her.

Sorrry, this may be too off topic, but Maureen Dowd just had a long column in NYT Magazine about this very question (at least as I interpretit). Apparently, youngish women in NYC not only permit men to pay for their meals, they EXPECT it.

Oy, I have the vapors. The phrase "girl money" makes me gag.

Read if you wish, free registration may be required. http://www.nytimes.c...inism.html?8dpc

[Tess]

Thanks, ingrid. I tried to read that article but my eyes kept skidding off the page.

[BryanZ]

I think that's a good way to put it.  But I was just remarking it could be hypocritical for a woman to believe in the old precepts of chivalry while embracing her inherent rights to equality.

It wouldn't just be hypocritical; it would be blindingly stupid. If you ever meet a woman who takes that position, you might want to address it with her.

I get in trouble for calling people out.

[wkl]

I read the article and it kind of goes against the thinking here that women don't want to/chose not to cook anymore. If women are reverting back to the traditional stay at home mom types, wouldn't their interest in cooking be more prevelant?

[Megan Blocker]

I think that's a good way to put it.  But I was just remarking it could be hypocritical for a woman to believe in the old precepts of chivalry while embracing her inherent rights to equality.

It wouldn't just be hypocritical; it would be blindingly stupid. If you ever meet a woman who takes that position, you might want to address it with her.

Sorrry, this may be too off topic, but Maureen Dowd just had a long column in NYT Magazine about this very question (at least as I interpretit). Apparently, youngish women in NYC not only permit men to pay for their meals, they EXPECT it.

Oy, I have the vapors. The phrase "girl money" makes me gag.

Read if you wish, free registration may be required. http://www.nytimes.c...inism.html?8dpc

Not all of us!

Generalizations drive me crazy.

Of course, I am equal-opportunity. I expect members of both gender to pay for my meals.

I get in trouble for calling people out.

Yeah, it's a tough subject to bring up - people get awful touchy about it, no doubt. Why? Because they know they're being hypocritical and can't figure out what to say. Otherwise bright, reasonable, capable women (and men, for that matter) are brought to their knees over this issue. I think it comes down to what someone said above - you have to see those gestures as rising from respect for each other as human beings, not from some reservoir of feminine entitlement.

I fall firmly in the camp of "it's really nice if a guy opens the door for me, lets me enter a room first, pays for dinner - but I don't expect it or count it against him if he doesn't."

That said, I also fall firmly in the camp of "let me off the elevator or out of the subway before you get on, or I'm going to knock you one in the teeth." This applies to both men and women.

I open doors for all people.

It seems that this idea of the new-age housewife is more than just a small minority.

Relative to the population of the U.S.? I think it's an incredibly small minority. Relative to the number of women fortunate enough to be over-educated, free of student loans, and surrounded by wealthy, single men? Maybe a slightly larger minority.

This may all be too OT, though...

Edited by Megan Blocker, 31 October 2005 - 02:10 PM.

[BryanZ]

From the fascinating NYT article:

Many women now do not think of domestic life as a "comfortable concentration camp," as Betty Friedan wrote in "The Feminine Mystique," where they are losing their identities and turning into "anonymous biological robots in a docile mass." Now they want to be Mrs. Anonymous Biological Robot in a Docile Mass. They dream of being rescued - to flirt, to shop, to stay home and be taken care of. They shop for "Stepford Fashions" - matching shoes and ladylike bags and the 50's-style satin, lace and chiffon party dresses featured in InStyle layouts - and spend their days at the gym trying for Wisteria Lane waistlines.

The Times recently ran a front-page article about young women attending Ivy League colleges, women who are being groomed to take their places in the professional and political elite, who are planning to reject careers in favor of playing traditional roles, staying home and raising children.

If we apply these sentiments to traditional household gender roles, what does it mean? Does this mean that young women are starting to willingly return to the household responsibilities of their mothers and grandmothers (i.e. willingly cooking and cleaning)? Or does it imply that young women are creating a new retro-inspired role for themselves, relying on men to provide for and protect them in a romantic sense, but shunning tradtional household responsibilites?

I am led to believe it is the latter. This article brings up an issue that hasn't really been discussed yet. Perhaps women actually aren't moving into the workforce as rapidly as most people assume and are embracing their "femininity" instead. It seems that this idea of the new-age housewife is more than just a small minority. I think it's kind of unsettling, but to each woman her own.

Read the article, it's long but very interesting.

[BryanZ]

I read the article and it kind of goes against the thinking here that women don't want to/chose not to cook anymore. If women are reverting back to the traditional stay at home mom types, wouldn't their interest in cooking be more prevelant?

See my last post. One might assume that initially, but it becomes quite clear it's all really a farce. I've seen the vintage aprons from Anthropologie that they mention in the article and they're not really for cooking.

It's all about this romantic idea of marriage, chivalry, and the the woman as a "lady". A "lady" to the extent that she is to be waited on hand and foot. At least that's the feel I got from the article.

edit to add: There's this overlying theme of dependency that many young women (in the article) seem to embrace. That's the basics of it, I guess.

edit part deux:

Relative to the population of the U.S.? I think it's an incredibly small minority. Relative to the number of women fortunate enough to be over-educated, free of student loans, and surrounded by wealthy, single men? Maybe a slightly larger minority. laugh.gif

Yeah, well I come from the latter camp. It's not that uncommon.

Edited by BryanZ, 31 October 2005 - 02:05 PM.

[Megan Blocker]

edit part deux:

Relative to the population of the U.S.? I think it's an incredibly small minority. Relative to the number of women fortunate enough to be over-educated, free of student loans, and surrounded by wealthy, single men? Maybe a slightly larger minority. laugh.gif

Yeah, well I come from the latter camp. It's not that uncommon.

As do I. And none of my friends expects it.

But, we may be unusual - I certainly know of some women who do. Things like this make me glad I went to Bryn Mawr, where you always have to pay for your own meal. And glad I chose the friends I did.

Edited by Megan Blocker, 31 October 2005 - 02:14 PM.

[Carrot Top]

I read the article and to me it was talking about how to get laid.

The photo of Maureen camped out as she was seemed to support that idea, also.

[Megan Blocker]

I read the article and to me it was talking about how to get laid.

The photo of Maureen camped out as she was seemed to support that idea, also.

Well, a man who pays for dinner automatically gets laid. I mean, that's his right.

Edited by Megan Blocker, 31 October 2005 - 02:14 PM.