This isn't sexist at all.

[PiperIsTerrysChoclateOrange]

In my DH works on night shifts each of the wives/partners cook for all the men on shift.

I'm happy with it and so are all the other women, we have been doing this for years. It means they all get a hot home made meal.

The 1 partner of a new man who has started has pulled a strop and said it sexiest and very 1950.

The reason we all enjoy cooking them as we can step away from cooking 'kids' meals and kick up the heat on curries and jerk chicken ect.
While I accept that children do eat these kind of meals within our friendship group all these are always done mild.

IABU to think it is not sexiest.

In able to do this many years ago with the Christmas bonus they brought a George foreman, slow cooker, pressure cooker and a rice cooker. Due to H&S the only thing they haven't got is a deep fat fryer. But all the others have been PACT tested.

Fireside - you may think it's out of line. These women seem happy with it and have arranged it amongst themselves. I don't think it's fair to criticise others simply because you wouldn't like it yourself and consider it sexist.

The reason I mentioned SAHM is because the work that they do could equally be compared to that of a '1950s housewife' but the people complaining about this arrangement don't criticise SAHMs for taking on those apparently 'sexist' roles.

These women seem happy with it and have arranged it amongst themselves.

How do you know this? On the say so of one person who thought it appropriate to slot in the new 'wifey'.

But this story is about a woman being expected to cook for her DH.

That's got nothing to do with SAHMs. That's a choice. Not an expectation.

I would love to talk to all the other wives and find out what they really think of this arrangement.

It's the assumption that it's the wife's role to do the cooking, rather than her DH's responsibility that's offensive. Also that she's got nothing better to do with her time.

If you choose to cook for your husband, that's entirely different.

We really don't know if the women are happy with it just because the OP is. We also don't know if some of the men are doing their own cooking and won't admit that because of peer pressure.
I still find it surprising that a group of women in this day and age do this and the OP thought it was acceptable to contact this woman using the men's phones. I wonder if she continued to utilise that communication route for her follow up text?

When you have a work party, do all the wives cook for the party, organise the key parts of a BBQ whilst the men sit round the BBQ cooking and drinking. The wives then do the washing up etc etc whilst the men congratulate themselves on a party well done

Alternative - we what information have you got to go on? Your own opinion?

Orlando - I already said that I think the issue was with the assumption/expectation and that I didn't think the OP should have contacted the wife. SAHMs were brought up in response to people who we're suggesting that the arrangement was sexist in general. I don't necessarily think it is.

It's not sexist to assume / expect the wife to cook a meal for 20 men?

If that's not sexist, what it? She might have a job herself. Or she might have kids which is a full time job as well. If I was expected to cook a meal for 20 blokes just because "everyone else does", I can tell you where that meal would go.

Orlando. Read my second paragraph.

Whether it's inherently sexist is open to opinion obviously. I think the notion that the little women feed and mass nurture the group of big hard working men who obviously need a home cooked hot meal is both old fashioned and sexist.

It reminds me of the time when I was a child and as a family we drove in the snow to visit my aunt and uncle. It was bitterly cold with snow on the ground and we were very late arriving having not eaten for hours. She brought out a plate of salad and a couple of sandwiches for us two girls and my mum, followed by a full roast dinner for my father, saying "I saved this for you - a man can't do without a hot meal."

Ilovesooty - that would not have gone down well with me. I eat more than DH

But they aren't just cooking for their own partners are they? They are feeding 20 men at their place of work.

Yes, but remember that their partner is also getting a hot meal on 19 other occasions at zero cost and for zero effort for either him or his partner. Cooking collectively means that each household is saving family money and time.

Here's a thought.

Why can't the men cook the 20 meals each time?

Then the family are saving time and money. The idea of collective cooking is fine. It's the expectation that it is the wife who cooks it.

Orlando - most people agree that it's the expectation that the other wife would join in that's the problem. Some women do enjoy cooking though and would be happy to be a part of the arrangement so being critical and calling the arrangement sexist simply because it involves women and cooking seems a bit unfair.

Maybe I'm the exception but I think it's a really nice thing to do xx

We don't know all the other 19 women are happy with the arrangement. They may all have been happy at the time it was set up, some may have been unhappy and felt pressured into it, some may have changed their minds in the intervening period.
OP is happy, new wife is not. Two differing views which may or may not be shared by the other women.

The race analogy is excellent.

Lots of couples don't agree to sexist divisions of labour purely coincidentally.

Our society is created by men, for men.

I heart New Wife.

Maybe I'm the exception but I think it's a really nice thing to do xx

So is a steak and blow jobs night. xx

You get a text putting pressure on you to opt I'm in the first place - a text delivered through the men. I don't think it says anything positive about the OP's husband that he obliged I'm using his phone for the purpose. Then you get the comments about her "throwing a strop" ""and the implication that she's falling short of expected standards by not complying because she isn't doing the "nice thing " for the men

Sorry for typos - why did the OP's husband collude in using his phone to put pressure on this woman through her husband?

I keep wondering whether the men pooled their bonus for kitchen equipment because they planned to cook for themselves :) Then OP the WAGs came along and said "Oh, no, you silly men can't cook! We'll do it all for you!"

Or perhaps they do cook for themselves, and OP's the only sucker who's been tricked into mass catering

I'm not sure that vast amounts of family money are being saved. If I cooked a meal for 20 men I would probably feel obliged to make it slightly bigger and better than the leftovers or wraps that generally make up work lunches in our house. I concede it's cheaper to cook a vast meal than buy 20 microwave meals but I don't see that as the most likely alternative. There are about 50 people in my department and bar soup, microwave meals are vanishingly rare.