Women Can't Cook

[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.com/2005/10/30/magazine...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.com/2005/10/30/magazine...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 October 31, 2005 by Megan Blocker (log)

[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 October 31, 2005 by BryanZ (log)

[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 October 31, 2005 by Megan Blocker (log)

[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 October 31, 2005 by Megan Blocker (log)

[*Deborah*]

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.

←

Errmmm...depends whose dinner he buys. Heaven knows there are still women who equate sex with amount of money spent...

("would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "yes!" "would you sleep with me for $5?" "no! what kind of woman do you think I am?!?!?!" "madam, we have already established what kind of woman you are...now all that remains is to negotiate your price.")

(Edited to try and clarify that I wasn't disagreeing with you, Megan! )

Edited October 31, 2005 by *Deborah* (log)

[Tess]

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.

←

No, it's my right. I expect an expensive dinner *and* I expect to get laid. Otherwise he's history.

[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.

←

No, it's my right. I expect an expensive dinner *and* I expect to get laid. Otherwise he's history.

←

[kitchenmage]

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.

←

You're an over-educated woman who is loan-free and surrounded by wealthy, single men? Really?

Seriously, while Dowd is sometimes either amusing or enlightening, you're asking us to take the opinion of a woman well past the ageOfInappropriateClothes who shows up in a lingerie top to do political commentary. I think I'll get my feminist writings elsewhere, thank you very much. Not to mention that it, like your writing BryanZ, is simply one person's opinion/observations--and only a bit of that, it's about 800 words--on a topic that is as individual as a favorite meal. I daresay that she, being female, is a smidge more qualified to write on the issue than some, but the headline says "girl" so I am not giving her too much credit. (BryanZ, if you think shes saying anything new or particularly interesting, you really should consider the earlier suggestions to take some women's studies classes, or pick up a few good books...the column is depressingly repetitive of other backlash-lite crap that circulates every so often.)

btw, I don't expect my dates to pay for dinner, or open doors, or even defend me. I can pay, open, and defend with the best of them. Chivalry is sexist, and it seems to be an attempt to paint women as 'girly' and dependent to drag it into this thread.

In an attempt to pull this back on topic, let me just say this. Some people seem to assume that the "traditional household gender roles" are a good thing and thus the entire conversation about women cooking or not logically follows. Many others see those roles as institutionalized sexism and believe that all peoople should know how to cook/clean/cope. A few trade on the gap between these two groups to promote their latest TVshow/book/agenda. Guess which group GR hangs with?

[Busboy]

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.

←

No, it's my right. I expect an expensive dinner *and* I expect to get laid. Otherwise he's history.

←

←

So, two six packs of beer and large pepperoni isn't enough anymore?

[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.

←

No, it's my right. I expect an expensive dinner *and* I expect to get laid. Otherwise he's history.

←

←

So, two six packs of beer and large pepperoni isn't enough anymore?

←

Probably depends on the lady...I know a few who would be quite taken by such a meal.

[Tess]

Depends on the pizza and beer. Fly the pizza in from Italy, and you're good to go.

[Megan Blocker]

To pull this a bit further back on topic (though I really am enjoying the one-liners going back and forth!), let me make an observation/hopeful statement.

I wonder if this issue might become less and less of one as the years pass, and young girls and boys grow up witnessing mothers and fathers who both work and cook.

I would consider myself passionately feminist, by which I mean that I seek equality in all areas of life, in as many ways as possible, for both men and women. I was raised by a woman with similar sensibilities. Like me, she entered the workforce immediately after college, and, like me, she was an ambitious, single, working woman (although the single part really happened for her post-divorce). She was and is an excellent, enthusiastic cook. During the crazy years of the mid-80's and early 90's, we had a nanny* who cooked most of our weeknight meals, simply because my mother couldn't be home in time to do it (I had an 8 PM bedtime until I was thirteen, people.), though she often ate with us, or sat with us while we did. But on weekends and at holidays, I saw that my mother truly loved to cook and was truly good at it. Perhaps this is why the ideas of being an independent, successful woman and a great, happy cook have never been at odds for me, never subject to a feminist dilemma.

I would hope that this will be the case more and more often, as more girls and boys are fortunate enough to be raised with the kind of balanced attitude I got from my mother in relation to work and home, and to cooking in particular.

*The word really doesn't do Lori justice; she is still my mom's closest friend and essentially was a third parent to my brother and I. Lori also worked out of the home every day, as a pediatric nurse, but kept mostly part-time hours.

[Megan Blocker]

And just to bring up Ms. Dowd one more time...here's a link to Gawker, where folks have been invited to interpret some line in her article about "quid profiteroles." Hey, it mentions food.

Click!

[ingridsf]

Ramsay, Dowd and the Times all seem to know different types of young women than I do. If you'd like to check out http://www.feministing.com/, scroll down and see the collected critiques of Dowd's piece, namely its lack of data.

For even more fun, check out feministing's reaction to The Man Himself, http://feministing.com/archives/002173.html

And for all of you who thrilled to my Bureau of Labor Statistics data in an earlier post regarding the wage gap between male/female head cooks, on Friday the Senate passed an amendment that would require the BLS to continue gathering data on female workers. Simmer down, people. Data collection's exciting but don't embarrass yourselves.

[Pontormo]

Since personal messages are sometimes a better way to go when the steam starts to rise from beneath the turtleneck, I would like to bring to your attention something that a wiser, more established member of the society has brought to mine:

Why So Few Women Are Great Chefs

Now, mind you, I am posting this link after vowing not to post here again. So in the spirit of what some men look for, according to Dowd's research, I will restrict my words to these few and log out.

(In case you're wondering, I am wearing brown suede slip ons with rubberized soles and thick-ribbed black cotton socks.)

Edited to fix link....I hope.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Pontormo (log)

[Pontormo]

Is Mario Batali the Anti-Gordon Ramsay?

In the new thread about Buford's Heat, the time both MB and GR spent in Marco Pierre White's kitchen was noted.

Here's something else which should be understood in the context of the profound role home-cooking plays in our understanding of Italian cuisine and the idealization of the Italian grandmother in particular, including Mario's own:

Mario believed that Elisa was Babbo's best chef, "not just because she's the most experienced but because she's a woman.  I know it doesn't make sense, and I don't understand it.  But it is consistently the case: women are better cooks.  They approach food differently." The assumption would seem to resist scientific scrutiny but was one Joe [Lidia Bastianich's son] shared as well.

--Buford, p. 59

[Mikeb19]

I need to add something here. My grandmother (and her sisters) were/are among the best cooks I've ever known. The techniques I see in the top restaurants are the same my grandmother was using. Even fine-dining restaurant food generally doesn't come close to what my grandmother used to make us (in flavour anyway). My mother, although not as skilled as my grandmother, was still a pretty good cook (better than most my friends' mothers).

Yet I also work as a professional cook, and have only worked with a single half-decent woman in the kitchen (a middle-aged chinese lady who couldn't speak english). Most of the woman I've worked with can't take the heat, can't take the hours or the stress, their standards are lower (this is one thing I can't stand - I'm always shooting for perfection, I can't take people who are content with mediocre), and they work slower. Many got fired due to constant screw-ups. This is not opinion, just my experiences.