to boycott the Sainsbury's magazine due to an incredibly patronising campaign?

[BaronessOrczy]

Disregard the question of whether IABU by reading it in the first place

They've started a Dishy Dad's campaign. No real problem with the sentiment behind that.

It's the copy which accompanies it which has caused me to froth, ever so gently, at the mouth.

"Dishy Dads is our brand new campaign to encourage the nation's fathers to start cooking. And, to prove that all men have time to rustle up a meal, we asked three of busiest in the country, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, to share the quick, tasty recipes they use when it's their turn in the kitchen. Dads cooking sets a great example to kids and can make a real difference to their lives - just take a look at our quotes from some of the world's most famous chefs, all influenced by their foodie fathers."

So far, so gently patronising. But this is the paragraph which has caused me to consider boycotting the magazine, and, if I don't run out of chocolate get a handle on my annoyance, the supermarket:

"Dads donning the apron a few nights a week makes a big difference to mums, too, who can end up feeling more pressure than pleasure when cooking healthy, crowd pleasing suppers each day. Weekday meals don't have to be gourmet to be good, so come on Dishy Dads - get cooking!'

It's no real surprise that Slimey Dave's recipe is adapted from the River Cafe cookbook, that Nick Clegg's is 'cheap, quick and uncomplicated', and that Ed Miliband is making a mountain out of a molehill with his tuna melt.

It's so bloody self-righteous and patronising. And irritatingly smug. Look, a man with a pan in his hand! And he works too! Well done.

AIBU to be so annoyed by this?

Oh, and the survey part which accompanies this article is in association with Netmums

That seems to be talking about surrounding groups and traditions, not location?

I have to say the reason 'ethnic aisle' gets on my nerves (though I don't take it to the level of boycotting S), is because it seems so stupidly patronizing in some areas where most of the shoppers as using that aisle to buy food for their normal cooking.

I think we'll look back in about 10 years and think 'oops, that was dodgy!' about it.

how intensely sexist. urgh

Cross-post - sorry LDN, didn't mean to speak for you, it's just one of those things that gets on my nerves too.

Oh no, it was very well put, I would have gone on some long rant about it for half a page

rants are always fun. My DH (who does cook and opines that Dave C is the last man on earth whose cooking he'd choose to emulate) comments to me that he reckons cured fish, dill and caviar should be in the 'ethnic' aisle, as should all the lovely exotic fruit. It is a daft thing to call it, why not just put 'spices' at one end? Looking at my sainsburys that's mostly what it is anyway.

Does the magazine come with a free medal too?

Quite. I just think it is incredibly daft in this day and age. I think the reason it got to me so much recently is the fact that (as you have pointed out), there are many foreign foods that are not included in that aisle that surely should be IYSWIM. It only seems to contain Asian, African and Eastern European food produce for the most part. Surely all the lovely French and Italian cheeses (that I over indulge in) should be there too if it simply denotes foods from foreign countries or belonging to minority groups here in the UK? All food is 'ethnic' I say!

Anyway, sorry to the OP for hijacking her thread.

True, LDN.

at Gladly.

If we areoing to have a campaign to get men to cook, can it be less

Oh well done you, helping with the women's work

and a bit more

FFS, my 13 year old can make spag bol, what's your excuse?

What are we living in - the 1960s?! A cereal advert from way back when? No mention of sharing cooking equally, WOHM, SAHD, single parent families - they could alienate not only those customers they exclude from the described set-up, ie not a "traditional" 2 parent family where Mum does the cooking, but also those customers who may actually BE a "traditional" 2 parent family but resent the implications and assumptions made.

Back to the drawing boards.

While the whole concept of "helping with the housework/cooking" gets right up my nose, that article actually doesn't. It doesn't use that phase. It does however say "when it's their turn in the kitchen" which (quite rightly!) sounds like it's their responsibilty too.

"Dads donning the apron a few nights a week makes a big difference to mums, too, who can end up feeling more pressure than pleasure when cooking"

It doesn't say it's helping, but it does point out that dads pulling their weight will take pressure off of mum. In this house at least, that's very true! It doesn't say that it will make you a hero, or imply that it's any more than doing your fair share.

My DH didn't know how to fry an egg when we met. First time he cooked a meal from scratch, he was really pleased with himself, as would anyone be after learning a new skill and getting it right.

Sure the article sounds a bit smug, perhaps annoyingly so, but I just don't find it particularly sexist.

Pallymama, the word "helping" doesn't have to be present to be implied.

The article is assuming that 1) Dads don't already pull their weight 2) Dads do not feel the pressure Mums do re cooking healthy crowd pleasing meals. 3) Dads can make a "big difference" to Mums by donning an apron. (This last point is strongly where helping is implied without being said).

Why assume that Mums ARE feeling the pressure and not Dads? It is definitely sexist or it wouldn't assume that Mums who used to traditionally do pretty much all the cooking are still the ones doing so. It really should have aimed at sharing the family cooking without naming roles.

How does "taking turns" imply that one person is helping another? I thought "taking tuns" would imply shared responsibility.

In this house and, going by the amount of threads on here, in a lot of other houses, Dads don't already pull their weight. They should, but not all of them do. How is pointing that out sexist? (I'm happy to be corrected here, as I just don't see it.)

The point about pressure I took to mean that having to cook everyday can make you feel pressured, so sharing the load makes a big difference.

Where does it say "taking turns"? It says "when it's their turn in the kitchen". They are subtly different (and you have fallen for the jist just as they wanted). "Taking turns" implies a me, you, me, you pattern whereas what the ad actually says is "when it's their turn in the kitchen", which, according to the rest of the advert is merely "a few nights a week".

It's sexist because it is assuming that Mums are currently doing all or most of the cooking, even though and it's patronising because good old Sainsburys will encourage the Dads (on the Mum's behalf) to take the pressure off the Mums. "makes a big difference to Mums". Ah, cheers!

It's also ssuming that "Dishy Dads" who don't already do their fair share will listen to a Sainsbury's advert rather than their own partners. That is very annoying.

a bit went missing in the middle: even though there are many fathers who do equal or all of the cooking in current times compared to past times.

Completely agree with you OP. Wrong on so many levels. But I will declare YABU for reading the Sainsbury's magazine in the first place!!! Don't encourage the fuckers.