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.

I don't think the women folk are trusted to own some of this modern technological malarkey

Eww, oily chips.

You'd think so wouldn't you Drink but seemingly this all has to be done via the big men's phones so that the women are aware of their place and the group expectations.

Not only that but the men can make damn sure nobody dips out of the task in hand.

The women might go completely wild and phone a takeaway

Hey drink how are ya doing, wench?

Those questions have been asked. But as yet no answers.

Don't forget that this technical cookery stuff for the wives to use was bought from the men's bonus payments in the first place. No question of those payments being considered family money or being up for discussion - just a unilateral decision taken on behalf of 20 families.

Sooty

But the men folk were thinking of the little women...making their lives easier by getting two. 6.5 slow cookers....I mean how lucky can you be

And to top it all of they even got them PACT tested for them

Romance isn't dead after all

Thanks Boofy. That's what I think - that it was the assumption that was the issue - not necessarily the arrangement. That's why I thought the newcomer's partner was rude in her reply. She could have just opted out. She didn't have to criticise them for something that they've been doing for years.

Alternative, I was asking because people seem to be objecting to this arrangement because they are taking issue with the idea that a group of women are cooking for a group of men - that it is a sexist '1950's style' idea. If this falls into that category then surely SAHM arrangements should be open to the same criticism? (But they usually aren't) I have a feeling that some people just came along to put the boot in on this thread without actually thinking it through tbh.

I have a feeling that some people just came along to put the boot in on this thread without actually thinking it through tbh.

Er, yes, yes, you could be right there.

Anyone else think they would rather eat the fry-up made by the nice single man, who has obviously managed to plan meals and go shopping with out it affecting his masculine ability to work a physically demanding night shift?

I would get bored to tears with a stew/casserole every night, however spicy it was. Also no guarantees about what, some of the more stroppy wives who are pissed off with this long-standing arrangement, might add to the ingredients either

Hey mouse I'm knackered and looking at the tip that's called my living room fine, thanks

Oh I've thought it through. I'm actually feeling more angry about all aspects of this set up the more I think about it.

sooty if I had a DH I'd be happy to help on ad hoc basis but ideally I'd just sit there with Prosecco watch him sweat over industrial amounts of curry

Hmmm, is that why I have no husband

drink don't do it, what if he brings the slow cookers home?

I believe he has a rather large George foreman

More sarcasm Annie? How entertaining.

Maybe it would make us a fry-up when he gets home in the morning. Set me up for the day, it's tough work being a feckless WM

I can't believe after all the posts I read on here saying bonuses are family money no one else has raised the issue if the women being expected just to accept a unilateral decision on behalf of 20 families to purchase kitchen equipment. That's even before the expectation of the women cooking for the men.

Well, I have a rather tight tidy slow cooker myself...

How did they manage the cooking before they got the slow cookers/grill etc? Did the men have to cart in half a dozen saucepans of chilli each night? I'm ridiculously fascinated by the logistics and history of this. Hence my earlier comment about the washing up.
Also single man probably alternates spag bol with the fry-ups if he's following the script.

Ilovesooty it's for the greater good [hot fuzz emoticon]

Alternative, I was asking because people seem to be objecting to this arrangement because they are taking issue with the idea that a group of women are cooking for a group of men - that it is a sexist '1950's style' idea. If this falls into that category then surely SAHM arrangements should be open to the same criticism?

No, why are you so hung up on this?

Not hung up on it at all. I think it's an example that makes some people uncomfortable though because there are clearly parallels but people don't want to be seen as SAHM-bashing.